A refutation from Wiki: "A very different approach explicates the rhetorical production of supposedly 'bottom-line' arguments against relativism. Edwards et al.’s influential and controversial "Death and Furniture"[35] paper takes this line in its staunch defense of relativism. Part of the rhetoric discussed here involves the portrayal of relativists who say (for example), "torture is not an absolute evil", as saying, in effect, "we don't disapprove of torture as strongly as you do". Relativists argue that this is a rhetorical trick, akin to claiming "you can't throw out the bath water without throwing out the baby too": denying absolute truths still leaves relativists free to be utterly and passionately opposed to torture. Further cultural relativism only implies that differing cultural contexts have to be taken into account when making judgements about what is good or bad relative to that culture. It does not limit one's ability to disagree with a cultural norm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism On Oct 7, 2010, at 12:55 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > dmb, > > There are many types of relativism, and you are presenting one > interpretation. > In epistemological relativism there is no ABSOLUTE measure of truth; I agree. > > > > Marsha > > > > On Oct 7, 2010, at 12:48 PM, david buchanan wrote: > >> >> >> John said: >> I thought relativity meant there's no standard to tell how old time is, or >> how big space is. Even though TV and Schoolbooks beg to differ. >> >> dmb says: >> If you are talking within the context of physics, "relativity" is about time >> and space. In the context of philosophy, however, relativism is a position >> on truth and morality. So Einstein's theory is not in dispute here. The >> dispute is about epistemological relativity and its relation to the >> pragmatic theory of truth. That is the context in which "relativity" means >> there is no standard by which to measure things like truth and moral values. >> As you may have noticed, I think relativism is a very bad idea with very bad >> consequences and I think the pragmatic theory of truth is NOT a form of >> relativism. >> >> That's what Sam Harris was complaining about, you know? A relativist has no >> basis on which he can condemn those Albanian vendetta customs or female >> genital mutilation or torture by the American military or the Nazis or >> anything else. He's morally and intellectually paralyzed by his own >> relativism. So Sam is trying to find a scientific way to condemn >> objectionable cultural practices. He's trying to find a way to use "facts" >> against cruelty and injustice. And he condemns Rorty's brand of pragmatism >> because of the relativism he sees in it. As you may have noticed, I'm very >> sympathetic with Sam Harris on both counts. I suppose "science" has to be >> taken very broadly to include philosophy and intellectual work in general >> and I like to think he'd like the original theory of pragmatic truth a lot >> more than he likes Rortyism, but I'm still very sympathetic with Sam. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
