On Aug 17, 2009, at 1:26 AM, MarshaV wrote:
Steve,
Once again, what is your definition of relativism?
Marsha
Hi Marsha,
I would like to see the term dropped from our vocabulary in part
because it is so unclear what anybody means by the term and part
because I'd like to see SOM, the philosophical system on which the
term is based, dropped altogether. In every day usage, it just seems
to be a catch-all term for anyone a conservative disagrees with.
In philosophy, my take is that relativism-absolutism is just another
version of subjective-objective. It is the same question as asking if
the quality is in the subject or the object. The claim that truth and
morality are just subjective (relativism) is self-defeating because
that claim itself then must be viewed as just subjective and needn't
be taken seriously. So I don't think anyone should want to call
herself a "relativist" because such a person will not be taken to
even believe herself when she calls herself that.
In the MOQ, however, absolutism-relativism is one of those
philosophical platypi that get dissolved to the point where you
wonder why you even asked the question to begin with. Are morals
cultural constructs? Of course they are, but so are atoms and
mathematics. It doesn't mean that there aren't true and false things
to be said about them. There is no problem for moral claims as well
as factual claims to be thought of as having truth-value, so the MOQ
denies relativism. And we can make such claims without imagining such
essences as Natural Law or The Moral Law for such claims to try to
conform to, so the MOQ also denies absolutism.
Best,
Steve
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/
