X has expressly spoken against the human ability to discern truth, the mutability of the concept of justice, the inability to ground morality in self- evident principle, and the like, I am not sure what all of the fuss is about
X has occasionally noted, as have I, that while humans of many descriptions proclaim their ability to discern "truth", the "truths" they discern are frequently very different, which raises reasonable doubt as to which of them, if any, are discerning any "truth" beyond their own base of perception.
If X has claimed the concept of justice is mutable she has hardly broken any new ground; how can anything that has changed so drastically and oft be reasonably claimed to be immutable?
If X has spoken of the inability to ground morality in self-evident principle, she speaks a reasonable thing. What is self-evident to one is not necessarily self-evident to anyone else; while a personal perception of self-evidence can be a reasonable basis for a personal moral code, it cannot reasonably be a basis for a code of public morality.
Any of these positions could be contested, butI do not understand how they can justify the outpouring of virulent hatred that has been directed at X. I've taken all of those positions at one time or another myself, and have suffered little worse than an occasional insult and a few suggestions that I am probably a dangerously amoral individual and an unfit parent.
Do you believe that anyone whose perception of truth, justice, and morality differs from yours deserves persecution?
I promised myself that I would no longer read this thread, and I expect that soon enough I shall wish I hadn't broken that promise. |
