I asked "Can there be any "wrong ways" if there are no "Right ways"?"
You respond with;
"These things are relative, yes?", which I assume means your answer to my question is no...
Wrong assumption.
I can and do say that the murderous attack on the WTC was unequivocally Wrong.
And I view an armed and powerful attack against the Taliban, bin Laden in particular, as Right.
However, I also accept that bin Laden's views are the reverse.
I think he's Wrong on this, too.
And maybe in 400 years the decision will be accepted as history... but I'm not going to say that because I think something is Wrong that everyone else now and in the future will say that it is wrong - even if I hope they will.
If, the Fates forfend, bin Laden's ideology ends up winning... which action do you think will be called Right? And if the whole world 400 years hence agrees, absolutely... well, we may disagree. But that's from our, relative, standpoint.
The point I'm trying to make to you is that 'relativism' does NOT necessarily mean you give equal weight, equal Rightness to opposing ideas.
It means you recognise that they exist.
And what you, now, judge to be Right and Wrong may not correspond to what others, now and at other times, would call by those labels. Like it or not.
I can still say "I believe this Right, and that Wrong". [and I can make that decision without needing to check the Bible - or the Qu'ran].
I don't claim or believe that my view is absolute and eternal truth. Even though I think it should be <vbg> |
