Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (17760)	7/7/2001 7:34:29 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As to why our local relativist hasn't entered into this discussion, she had decided she doesn't want to post to me any longer. I am only too well aware of that. Today is one of those days when I'm exceedingly sympathetic to her POV. If I were to judge that you either have spaghetti for brains or you're congenitally contrary, would that disqualify me for the relativism club? Pity. Since I do not consider myself a relativist, merely open minded and tolerant, I'm disinclined to be a stand-in on the relativist side. I will allow myself to be sucked in no further. Karen

To: The Philosopher who wrote (17760)	7/7/2001 9:13:18 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

A moral relativist might refrain from commenting on whether a certain behaviour is "right" or "wrong" in some abstract or absolute sense. That is quite sensible, since we have no way of knowing or deducing whether any abstract or absolute moral code exists, or, if it exists, what it is. That does not mean that the moral relativist must refrain from comment on what is or is not acceptable conduct among human beings. We have abundant evidence and grounds for deduction that allow us to judge that certain forms of conduct are destructive. We have every right to restrict such behaviour. The point is that we are not trying to restrict behaviour because big-daddy-in-the-sky, or some jerk down the block who claims to be in touch with big daddy, told us it was naughty, wrong, or immoral. We are trying to restrict behaviour because we have credible reason to believe that the behaviour in question will have a negative impact on other people. I hope the distinction is clear.