Hi Struan
You wrote:
> 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.
Hence relative. Where's the problem?
I'm not trying to defend relativity, I'm trying to illuminate the futility in
reasoning about
one philosophical system from another. Relativism will always look contradictory to
absolutism,
and to absolutists, contradictions are the ultimate bad. But to a relativist,
absolutism must seem
awfully boring and stale, which is their notion of bad.
> This being the case I wonder what makes the ' objective
> moral principles' Platt offers any better than the objective moral principles of
>other philosophies.
The keyword here is "better". Since different world views have different notions of
what is good,
there's no way they will ever agree upon what set of principles is best.
Absolutist: - My principles are better than your's.
Relativist: - Why?
Absolutist: - Because they are complete and non-contradictory.
Relativist: - Is that good?
Absolutist: - Of course it is, we'll never have to argue about what's right and wrong.
Relativist: - Is that good?
Absolutist: - ???
Arguing like this for a while, we soon see that the single question everything
ultimately boils
down to is "Is it good?", and here's where the MoQ starts.
Magnus
--
I stink, therefore I am. Ace, Skunk Anansie
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
