Greetings,
Some philosophers assume, others do not, that morality is fundamental to human
nature, the most
important thing. Moral relativism which Platt sees all around him - and regardless of
whether it is
based upon determinism - is the view that all morality is epiphenomenal and thus
superficial, but
this is not actually held seriously by anyone. Relativism clearly denies its own
veracity. For if
all opinions are relative, then the view that all opinions are relative is itself
relative and
therefore not true in itself. So if it is true it is false.
Moral cynics have often used the relativist argument to promote their own moral
attitudes. From
Thrasymachus through to the social criticism of Kierkegaard and the existentialist and
structuralist
ideas that spring from his ideas. Even hedonism presupposes the morality of freedom!
Relativism is
thus restricted to the denigrated status of a tool that many in power utilise to
forward their own
morality and, more often, to the layman who falls for it.
My only contribution here is to point out that moral relativism may be the professed
position of
many, but on analysis it is not their true position. One then has to delve deeper in
order to
ascertain what their metaphysics really is. This being the case I wonder what makes
the ' objective
moral principles' Platt offers any better than the objective moral principles of other
philosophies.
More importantly (and following a question Rob forwarded) I would be interested to
know of any moral
decisions anyone has made which have been decided in reference to a "reality-based
rational
framework" of a MoQ in contradistinction to being rationalised by said framework after
the event.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
