As I told Greg, when I said "we all agree", I was talking about those of us
participating in the conversation. I should have made that clear.
But I doubt even that we all agree that killing is wrong.
Some killing is wrong. But I'm sure each of us can create scenarios where we would think killing was right. Certainly I hope those of us with children can.
But we would probably still disagree on the exact definitions of when killing was wrong and when right. I expect each of us could create scenarios where some of us would say killing was right and others would say it was wrong.
If we see a government killing and torturing its citizens, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the citizens
think this behaviour undesirable, especially when they are fleeing in numbers to other countries.
That might seem a logical conclusion, but it might also be wrong. A moral relativist would say that unless I am a member of that society myself, I have no right to judge it as good or bad, right or wrong. I simply observe without judging.
If I choose not to deal with someone whose behaviour is, by my standards, contemptible, does that mean I'm not a
relativist?
No. Choosing not to deal with that person is simply choosing a choice FOR YOURSELF, not for the other. Even a moral relativist is entitled--even obligated--to regulate their own behavior by their own standards. What you cannot do is say that the other person is wrong, or that your standards are better than theirs. Yours are different, that's all, and you choose to live by yours rather than by his. That's perfectly fine. But going further is not. |
