Greetings,
The problem, Magnus, is that relativism is absolutist in its claim that everything is
relative. Thus
when people claim that all is relative they are in fact not being relativists. It is
'a priori'
wrong and so easily dismissed. I'm not reasoning from one philosophical system to
another, I am
arguing against a philosophical system precisely on its own terms. Like logical
positivism, it
commits the same offence it accuses the other side of, and so attempts to pull itself
up by its own
bootstraps.
I agree with the rest of your posting in that meta-ethics is the starting point of the
MoQ, which is
why my previous posting sought to ground that agreement in a practical case. If there
is an
'objective moral principle' then differing world views are going to be irrelevant to
the question of
which are the 'better' principles. Your claim that, "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,"
therefore seems at odds with your statement that, "I'm not trying to defend
relativity." (I assume
you mean this in the sense of relative morality - correct me if I'm wrong).
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/
