Get real, Tim. I said "evasive" because of this post from you which totally sullied our discussion of Absolutism/Relativism/Pluralism:
"When I use the term "evil person" I would not use it to mean someone who has committed evil or someone who should be held responsible for evil acts but rather someone who's character is on the balance evil
Your subjective and relativistic comments don't support your main points, and they don't permit rational debate.
"It would not be surprising if you called other people evasive all of the time, then I would figure its just your debating style, but you don't."
If you go back through 10,000 posts on SGBR I am sure you will see that I have no personal grudge with you--nor do I with others. I do confront people who make unsupported statements that appear ridiculous. You may call that a "debating style". But it is not that at all.
"If I said that I thought murder was unconditionally and unqualifiedly wrong would you then respond that the definition of murder is one with conditions and qualifications?
It is not necessary for you to speak for me. Such is an absolutist trait.
"Murder" is a word which was invented and which assumes a value. It is, of course, relative. We call the 19 bastards murderers; others call them freedom fighters, heros, etc.
Philosophers have tried for centuries to find absolutist morals which are universal. They ought to be predominant (if morality is God-derived), but they are non-existent.
I believe that we have a commonality of needs, etc. which (when processed by reason) dictates the preference of certain ideas such as cooperation, mutual assistance, 69, etc. However, it is always a product of YOUR feelings, thoughts, and self interest.
I suspect we have very similar values as we relate to others. But we will both pay the lawyer when we sell the house; because we know that self interest is the ultimate moral code, and self interest (even when it involves altruism or self sacrifice)...is still commanded by the self and by no other... |
