To all (I included this to avert confusion for Bo) In an effort to clear up just what we are debating about I have posted some clarification.
"In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth, although this may itself be considered a statement of universal standard. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (individualist ethical subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. In moral relativism there are no absolute rights and wrongs."-wiki "Moral relativism differs from value pluralism — which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated. Moral relativism, in contrast, grants the possibility of moral judgments that do not accept such limits." -wiki Platts problem is with his perception of an extreme relativist opinion. We agree with him, but we do advocate value pluralism. Platt insists that this makes no difference and finds it easier to debate us by making value pluralism synonmous with extreme moral relativism. What I DO take issue with is using this sort of arguement to justify the position that MoQ supports ethnocentrisim. Which Bo's SOL advocates also. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism This position runs contrary to the central driving theme of the body of Pirsigs work. Robert Pirsig is part of the contental philosophical movement which supports value pluralism which is most evident in Platts favorite Pirsig quote: "It´s a war of biological blacks and biological whites against social blacks and social whites. Genetic patterns just confuse the matter. And this is a war in which intellect, to end the paralysis of society has to know whose side it is on, and support that side and never undercut it. Where biological values are undermining social values intellectuals must identify social behavior, not matter its ethnic connection, and support it all the way without restraint. Intellectuals must find biological behavior, no matter what its ethnic connection, and limit or destroy destructive biological patterns with complete moral ruthlessness., the way a doctor destroys germs, before those biological patterns destroy civilization itself. "(Lila, 24) Interpreting this in an ethnocentric manner is To destroy the germ by destroying the patient, seems almost absurd in a Cpt. Ahab sort of way. The Doctor, finding himself morally superior to his patient would give you the choice of becoming a doctor yourself or kill you, then deem you "cured". Kinda Monty Python style. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
