Steve, (dmb), On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> dmb says: >> ...I'm objecting to your framing of the issue of relativism. You seem to >> be saying that if I can't convince the NAZI with arguments, then I'm a >> relativist too. > > > > Steve: > No, no, no. I am not accusing anyone here of being a relativist. I am > saying that accusing people who are willing to defend moral judgments of of > one culture over another of being relativists makes no sense. You are > insisting that it is not enough to make and defend moral judgments but that > there ought to be something more that qualifies someone as a > non-relativist. You are insisting that Rorty needs to conform to the > Platonist demand of a Foundation for moral judgments to not be a relativist > which is to buy into the old SOM absolutist/relativist dichotomy. Any > pragmatist or any MOQer who has stopped finding it relevant to ask, "is the > Quality in the subject or the object?" ought to have dropped the > absolutist/relativist formulation of morality in terms of a foundation long > ago. The only concern that a pragmatist ought to have with regard to > relativism is the person who cannot give reasons why a culture that > practices ritual human sacrifice, or female genital mutilation, or beats > their children ought to stop doing that. There are people like that as > Harris points out, but what they need is not some philosophical foundation > for morality to cure them of their relativism. What is needed is to cure > them of the idea that a philosophical foundation is what would be needed in > order to be able to make such judgments.
Whoa there Steve! What is a philosophical foundation but a series of linked judgements? Are you suggesting that such a conceptual codex is irrelevant? This is where Relativism can be destructive. We could say that each culture expresses "the good" but that such expression is in conflict between cultures. That "the good" is what you want it to be; that humanity is not linked under an innate framework. We have the "rules of the environment" which are indistinguishable from our human rules. This is the sense of a Moral universe. What such a morality implies is that we are an expression of a tendency that is positive, not negative. So, how can there be conceptual differences between cultures? I suggest that it is the abrogation of freedom. It is the tendency that people want to lead or follow. However, this tendency becomes detached from everyday reality (or survival if you want) through our powers of extrapolation. That is, the notion of "what should be" as different from "what is". If a "tabula raza" exists on birth, it is imbued with certain "mechanistic rules". I believe one of these guiding rules to be the sense of creativity. For what is the universe if not creative? Using creativity as a golden rule, it may be possible to see the forest through the trees. What rules, then, diminish human creativity? Is there a philosophical foundation that allows the most creativity? I suggest that MoQ is on the road to that end. Expression of "the good" is a universal tendency, humans included. If such Good becomes Relative, we encapsulate it and decrease its freedom. The drive should not be to educate individuals into the social mores, but to provide freedom through responsibility. This is the forest, which is made up of an ever present personal requirement to be better. This is not to be better as dictated by a society (money, fame, etc), but to be better within the universe as a whole. The guidance for this comes from the realization that the cosmos ARE and expression of the Good (or the Positive is perhaps a better word). While flowing with this river we can either grab onto and hold branches which are attached to the banks for fear that the river portends evil, or we can let go and see where it takes us. We know what is good and need not be told these things. Left to their own devices, humans are innately good. To say otherwise would be to separate us from reality. By the way, Quality is not IN the subject or the object, it is what creates them. Perhaps that is what you meant. Cheers, Mark > 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
