Since the other thread is getting so looooong. I will post this short remark here.
I for one am not confusing law and morality. Although I referred to the "justice" system, I am well aware that it is much more of a legal system which can be totally arbitrary. I also think that rather than the "relativists" justifying their position, Mike Palij should justify his position of why he believes moral/ethical systems are NOT relative. After all, it sure looks a lot like ethics are relative and if Mike Palij can argue convincingly that they are not then that's great news! I haven't heard an argument which strongly supports that ethics are not relative. What one usually gets is specific examples cited and "the other side" is asked how they will handle that one. This often turns out to be nothing but trying to show that most perhaps most people disagree with the particular persons on "the other side", but that is not a reasoned argument about the issue but rather a simple appeal to concensus. So again. can we please have an argument that shows ethics are not relative (that is, that they are universally applicable). In the words of Mike Palij: "The "relativist" Michael Smith argued that morality is relative (i.e., dependent upon local conditions instead of having universal aplicability)" --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
