Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WisdomForum] Re: [wittgenstein-dialognet] Another re-post from the Wisdom Forum -- Another Quick Point!

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    chris said:
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      chris said:

      <<there is no principled, rational, or logical way to distinguish between
      them morally. Another way of saying this is that there would be no single
      rational standard from which we could evaluate such a dispute.>>

      yes chris, this was what i tried to say earlier on in the thread "why be
      moral".

      james.






      From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
      Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      To: <wittgenstein-dialognet@yahoogroups.com>
      CC: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: [wittgenstein-dialognet] Another re-post from the
      Wisdom Forum -- Another Quick Point!
      Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:50:49 -0800

      Prof Richter said:
      >>It seems to be either psychologically impossible or
      logically impossible (if I can use that expression). Which it is is hard to
      say without a clear statement of what moral relativism is meant to mean.<<

      I think moral relativism is not the view that there are different moral
      theories or even rival moral theories. Moral relativism is the stronger view
      that were two theories conflict with one another--one says an action is bad
      (blowing up the World Trade Center with thousands of people inside) and the
      other says the same action is good (stabbing the infidel Great Satan in the
      heart with two airplanes), there is no principled, rational, or logical way
      to distinguish between them morally. Another way of saying this is that
      there would be no single rational standard from which we could evaluate such
      a dispute.

      I might add that I'm not surprised that Wittgensteinians would have
      difficulty even understanding the issue, being obsessed with whether
      Wittgenstien used the indefinite or the definite article to describe
      "language games" can tend to atrophy the mind.



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Richter, Duncan
      To: 'wittgenstein-dialognet@yahoogroups.com'
      Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:38 AM
      Subject: RE: [wittgenstein-dialognet] Another re-post from the Wisdom
      Forum -- Another Quick Point!


      Kirby Urner writes:

      So what would make me a relativist? If I say "I think this
      contrail stuff is a goofy, bonkers" am I not a relativist. But
      if I say "within the context of my personal belief system, one
      among many, I assert that these the contrail stuff is really
      ridiculous" -- am I now a relativist all of a sudden?

      Me: Yes, relativism seems to have to be the idea that other people's
      beliefs
      are somehow just as good or right as one's own, which is at least close
      to
      self-contradiction, unless perhaps one has no beliefs (although I don't
      know
      what that would mean). It seems to be either psychologically impossible
      or
      logically impossible (if I can use that expression). Which it is is hard
      to
      say without a clear statement of what moral relativism is meant to mean.

      Duncan Richter


      _________________________________________________________________
      Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.