Well, I don't know Marsha, I think you're being a little harsh--I think Steve is just genuinely interested in figuring out where you're at (not everyone is). I mean, a few moments ago everybody was asking for a definition of relativism, including you, and this was Steve's attempt to give one.
> From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:43:37 -0400 > Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's Relativism > > > Steve, > > What is this but a version of the Aristotelian Two-Step? If you would like > a serious response, I might answer yes, no and all of the above. Or I > might think this from LILA is a suitable answer: > > "While sustaining biological and social patterns > Kill all intellectual patterns. > Kill them completely > And then follow Dynamic Quality > And morality will be served." > (RMP, Chapter 32) > > > > > Marsha > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [MD] Marsha's Relativism > > Hi Marsha, DMB, > > Do you believe that moral assertions can have truth-value? For example, > do you see statements like "slavery is evil" as either true or false in > the same way that assertions of fact such as "2 is the smallest prime > number" is either true or false? > > If you take X to be some such proposition, do you see any of the > following to be problematic? > (1) Bob is justified in believing X given his context, but X is not > true. > (2) X is true for Bob but not true for Rich > (3) I used to be justified in believing X, but X is not true and never > was true. > (4) I am now justified in believing X, but X may turn out to be false > > I would say that if you see no problem with any of these, your view > would typically be called relativism. I think that anyone who objects > to 2 but sees nothing wrong with 1, 3, or 4 is using the usual > understanding of truth and it's relationship to justification but may > still be called relativism by some. If so, I would call this second > version of relativism the good kind and the first version the bad kind. > > The bad kind of relativism says that a proposition can be true to one > person and false to another while the good kind admits that belief in a > proposition may be justified for one person but not justified for > another but holds that truth is another matter entirely. The cure for > the bad kind of relativism may simply be to say, "If you think that a > statement like 'slavery is evil' can be both true and false at the same > time depending on who makes the assertion, then I don't think we both > mean the same thing when we use the word 'true.'" > > 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/ > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009 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/
