I understand relativism as the referral of all judgments back to a set of criteria, the relativity arising in that your set of criteria differs from my set. But is that the limit?
Apparently the relativist stops there and allows as how it's a matter of preference, opinion, and therefore we on one side have no grounds beyond our personal views to condemn the other side.
I like your “notion of truth”, but doesn’t analytic philosophy demand more than a notion?
I’ll go first: truth is the non-contradiction of a conception with its object. — Mww
But you appear to either refuse to, or cannot, generalize that view even so far as to say that their actions, among the most horrendous in recorded history, are simply wrong simpliciter. — tim wood
If they're not wrong, then nothing is wrong. — tim wood
I do not mean to disqualify your view that it's wrong. But your expressed view is a misstatement. — tim wood
What, then, is the natural, or default, state? Nothing is wrong? Nothing is right? — tim wood
I understand relativism as the referral of all judgments back to a set of criteria, the relativity arising in that your set of criteria differs from my set. — tim wood
Apparently the relativist stops there and allows as how it's a matter of preference, opinion, and therefore we on one side have no grounds beyond our personal views to condemn the other side. — tim wood
Below are all of S.'s replies and posts to me in this thread even remotely connected with Kant. You will search in vain for any argument or explanation. Claims, yes. Sarcasm, invective, and insult, yes, Hand-waving, deflection, misdirection, yes, A seeming deliberate ignoring of anything of substance, or any direct challenge or invitation to clarity, yes. All manner of things except anything of substance. And yet he calls me dishonest - or forgetful. This is your method of argument, S. Nor is it restricted to me. In going through your comments it appears to be your modus operandi. This is not reasoned debate to the end of learning; it's just a street-fight. You have demonstrated your ignorance of any better way. From now on you're not S., but mere-s. Kant is not a joke, you are, but not a funny one. You're not worth arguing with, because you don't know how.First of all, I've explained why I think that Kant's categorical imperative is a joke directly in reply to you at least a couple of times now. Your forgetfulness or dishonesty in this regard is not excused. — S
I understand relativism as the referral of all judgments back to a set of criteria, the relativity arising in that your set of criteria differs from my set. But is that the limit? - timw
Demonstrate why it's not.
Apparently the relativist stops there and allows as how it's a matter of preference, opinion, and therefore we on one side have no grounds beyond our personal views to condemn the other side. - timw — Edward
Please demonstrate anytime in history where any one group of people have made a collective decision that appeals to any type of provable objective code. — Edward
What's the tl;dr version? — Terrapin Station
They didn't think it was wrong, therefore it isn't wrong.
— tim wood
No. This has been repeatedly explained to you and your refusal to acknowledge this is nothing but bad faith. — Isaac
Poisoning the well. You're just pissed off because I'm like a gadfly with attitude. — S
Apparently the relativist stops there and allows as how it's a matter of preference, opinion, and therefore we on one side have no grounds beyond our personal views to condemn the other side.
— tim wood
Again, and again, and again, and again . . . we've tried to correct this misunderstanding of yours. NO ONE IS SAYING WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOVE. No one. The correct domain for moral judgments is what we think as individuals. What we think as individuals in this case, for most of us, happens to be that we condemn people who murder. We don't say this because the universe outside of people says that there's a problem with murder. We, as individual people operating in the world, thinking about it, etc. feel that there's a problem with murder. Hence we condemn it. — Terrapin Station
you don't see reason in meta-ethical moral relativism. — S
Empty posturing. You can start by properly addressing what I actually said of the categorical imperative. — S
You’re right, it’s not impossible, if something new is available. — Mww
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.