relativism and judgment
Sandra Dodd
-=-It is where relativism
fails us (i.e. all choices are valid). -=-
I really don't think "relativism" means all choices are valid.
The idea that there is no one single right or moral way to be doesn't
mean that ALL things are equally moral or valid.
Just because there's no one truth doesn't mean there's no such thing
as bullshit. (That's my personal take on truth; not everything is a
candidate for legitimacy.)
In some cultures women's arms must be covered (but not in north
America). In some, midriffs (but not in most of India). In some
places in South America and Africa, uncovered breasts are no sin or
immorality.
That doesn't mean that there's somewhere they go nekkid from the
waist down.
It's one thing to judge things arbitrarily and negatively and
constantly. That's not good, and it kills hope and joy.
But to go all the way the other direction and not even to
discriminate between better and worse, harmful or sweet, is even worse.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fails us (i.e. all choices are valid). -=-
I really don't think "relativism" means all choices are valid.
The idea that there is no one single right or moral way to be doesn't
mean that ALL things are equally moral or valid.
Just because there's no one truth doesn't mean there's no such thing
as bullshit. (That's my personal take on truth; not everything is a
candidate for legitimacy.)
In some cultures women's arms must be covered (but not in north
America). In some, midriffs (but not in most of India). In some
places in South America and Africa, uncovered breasts are no sin or
immorality.
That doesn't mean that there's somewhere they go nekkid from the
waist down.
It's one thing to judge things arbitrarily and negatively and
constantly. That's not good, and it kills hope and joy.
But to go all the way the other direction and not even to
discriminate between better and worse, harmful or sweet, is even worse.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
John Rizzo
Relativism taken to the extreme does indeed mean all choices are
valid. It depends on what level the person sets as the relative
measure. Pure and complete relativism means a choice is only good or
bad in respect to each individual person. Others set the relative
measure higher at nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Subjectivism is the theory that there is no set in stone absolute
right/wrong choice, but that some choices are so overwhelmingly seen
as good or bad that they must for all practical purposes be
considered good or bad. Your example of nakedness is a good
illustration of subjective morality.
For example, honor killings (ie, killing of raped girls by their
family for the insult of bringing shame on the family) in the middle
east would be seen as bad by a moral subjectivist, but seen as an OK
choice for a moral relativist who sets the measure at religion or
ethnicity, or lower.
These two concepts are confused often and in the case of dishonest
people arguing for religion, are often confused on purpose. It is
semantics, but can be very important to many discussions.
-John Rizzo
valid. It depends on what level the person sets as the relative
measure. Pure and complete relativism means a choice is only good or
bad in respect to each individual person. Others set the relative
measure higher at nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Subjectivism is the theory that there is no set in stone absolute
right/wrong choice, but that some choices are so overwhelmingly seen
as good or bad that they must for all practical purposes be
considered good or bad. Your example of nakedness is a good
illustration of subjective morality.
For example, honor killings (ie, killing of raped girls by their
family for the insult of bringing shame on the family) in the middle
east would be seen as bad by a moral subjectivist, but seen as an OK
choice for a moral relativist who sets the measure at religion or
ethnicity, or lower.
These two concepts are confused often and in the case of dishonest
people arguing for religion, are often confused on purpose. It is
semantics, but can be very important to many discussions.
-John Rizzo
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> -=-It is where relativism
> fails us (i.e. all choices are valid). -=-
>
> I really don't think "relativism" means all choices are valid.
>
> The idea that there is no one single right or moral way to be
doesn't
> mean that ALL things are equally moral or valid.
>
>
>
> Just because there's no one truth doesn't mean there's no such
thing
> as bullshit. (That's my personal take on truth; not everything is
a
> candidate for legitimacy.)
>
> In some cultures women's arms must be covered (but not in north
> America). In some, midriffs (but not in most of India). In some
> places in South America and Africa, uncovered breasts are no sin
or
> immorality.
>
> That doesn't mean that there's somewhere they go nekkid from the
> waist down.
>
>
>
> It's one thing to judge things arbitrarily and negatively and
> constantly. That's not good, and it kills hope and joy.
>
> But to go all the way the other direction and not even to
> discriminate between better and worse, harmful or sweet, is even
worse.
>
>
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>