SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Solon who wrote (15411)6/25/2002 9:45:00 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
If you want to accuse me of doing an injustice to relativists, fine. All the rest is nonsense.

Actually, though, you are quite wrong about Nazis. They were relativists, as were Communists. They thought that "moralities" were incommensurable, and a product of the inner life of the Volk. Thus, there was no independent standard by which to critique a People's prevailing morality, it could only be critiqued in terms of fidelity to its own premises. Similarly with the Communists. Morality was something which served class interests and reflected the way of life of the dominant class. The hegemonic morality in the modern world was "bourgeois morality". However, the emerging solidarity of the proletariat would lead to the ascendancy of its its budding morality, and after a period of conflict, the proletariat would become the dominant class, and enforce its morality. Neither is absolutist, in the sense of holding there to be an objective morality derived from the nature of man as such. Both are relativist, considering morality to be a combination of arbitrary choices and utilitarian constructs, that favor one People over another, or one class over another.

I did not, by the way, refer to absolutism. I merely said that there is an advantage in the assumption of a discoverable, objective moral order, so that we have a standard to aim at in our discussions of what is right.......