I think the reason S said it was a non sequitur was the conflation of normative with meta ethics. The opinion of a subjective relativist about what is' right' in some moral question may be of no consequence, but that doesn't mean their opinion with regards to meta-ethics is. Meta-ethical positions are argued by reference to shared standards like logic and reason. Normative ethical positions are argued from a position of shared values (although all too often, not even that, making such discussions hopelessly pointless).
To say that a relativist speaking of a variety of value positions must therefore also speak from an equally heterogeneous position with regards to logic and reason is the non sequitur. — Isaac
You thought wrong.
— S
certainly not the last time that will happen - — Rank Amateur
I don't really understand S's position. He says he's a moral relativist. The trouble with relativism is that it ultimately destroys its own ground. But S doesn't like "destruction" or the like, as loaded language. — tim wood
And he seems unaware that Kant answered moral relativism for all time with his categorical imperative. — tim wood
Apparently some things are and some things are not relative. I begin to wonder if S even knows what "relative" means. What, S, is an example of something that is not relative - I assume that for you all moral judgments are relative.
Or perhaps by "relative" you mean only that everything is referenced (I..e., "relative") - indexed to - to something else. If that is all you mean, then agreed; but then everything is relative, not just some things. — tim wood
So if you are a moral relativist, and I am a moral relativist, can we both have different moral judgements on some action, and agree the other judgement is correct for the other person? Or do you believe that your relative morality is right, and my relative morality is wrong? — Rank Amateur
So then do you tell me that my moral judgement is wrong? Or different? — Rank Amateur
so if you are a moral relativist, and I am a moral relativist, can we both have different moral judgments on some action, and agree the other judgement is correct for the other person ? — Rank Amateur
I thought moral relativity encompasses an acceptance of the moral positions of others. — Rank Amateur
My point is i don't think you can be a moral relativist and tell me my stance is incorrect nor should you have any desire to have me see it your way. — Rank Amateur
My point continues to be you cant have your relative moral view, without allowing all the possible relative moral views of others and still be a moral relativist. — Rank Amateur
I want to quote a passage from one of the most notorious radical relativist philosophers, Jacques Derrida. Here he is defending deconstruction against charges that it denies the possibility of determining truth in any sense. What he is trying to say here is that while any ultimate, universal, god-given grounding of truth, moral or otherwise, is not possible, within specific contexts, one must be able to make such moral determinations. That is , ,one must be able to choose from among "all the possible relative moral views of others" those which are on the 'right tack' and those that arent. — Joshs
If morality is relative to the individual they should ( pick a word you like accept, respect, not judge, fill in your own word) the relative moral judgement of each other. — Rank Amateur
Ok - and I then can have the same view back at you. That you are then equally wrong and different, and I am of course right about that relative to me. — Rank Amateur
Why not? Again, the idea of that only makes sense if you think we must defer to objectivity. You're focusing on the fact that objectively, both stances are on equal ground.
But subjectivists aren't advocating a deferral to objectivity. Objectivity with respect to morality is irrelevant. It's a category error.
Subjectively, both stances aren't on equal ground, are they? — Terrapin Station
no - we are not understanding each other - my point has nothing at all with objective morality at all - — Rank Amateur
Indeed you're not understanding me. Your framework here is that we have to defer to what's objectively the case. Objectively, the stances are on equal ground. You see that as being a trump card of sorts — Terrapin Station
no i am only dealing with relative morality - the whole point is how a moral relativist interacts with a moral view different than his own. Nothing in this case is objective - objective reality in this example does not exist. — Rank Amateur
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.