Sure, it could be re-ordered about a bit...

[fpb]

...but moral relativists are at the bottom, where they belong.

Parents who bring squalling brats to R-rated movies, fashion and fashionistas, Paris Hilton, Philosophers for sale to the highest bidder, Creationists, Journalists for sale to the highest bidder, academic comformists
Circle I Limbo

Eminem, Liz Taylor, Militant Vegans
Circle II Whirling in

Comments

[privatemaladict]

Wow, you're really condemning a lot of people. What exactly is a "moral relativist" and why do you hate them so much?

I did this meme a while ago, maybe I ought to do it again. I bet I can think of a whole lot of new people to condemn.

I think last time I threw you in there somewhere... Don't hold it against me...

[fpb]

Moral relativists are, in my definition, people who think that morality is individual, and that YOUR morality may be true and valid to YOU but is not valid and true to ME. This is the exact opposite of saying that morality may be complex and hard to establish, since no one person can see it completely or clearly; and that we all ought to obey a morality that none of us can be altogether certain of on his/her own. The latter is, in my view, a statement of the complexity and obscurity of life; the former, a form of escapism which ends up denying any reality to moral order. In my view, this sort of attitude is more criminal than any single crime, since it not only can legitimate any crime, but it actually binds the person to his/her mistakes and crimes: "your view of morality is valid to you" means, in real life, "if you cannot feel any personal objection to robbing old ladies or raping under-age boys, then that is not a misfortune but a fundamental part of your personhood, which you ought to value". All the worst political criminals

[privatemaladict]

Ahh. Of course. Is there, then, such a thing as moral pluralist?

[fpb]

If there is, I see little difference between that and moral relativism.

[privatemaladict]

Well... I would think a moral pluralist would accept that there may be different types of morality, but that not all are equal or true. There can be different ways of looking at it... but chances are, you will come up with some moral absolutes, such as that raping boys (or anyone, for that matter) is wrong.

[fpb]

That there are different ways of looking at an elephant, at Mount Everest, or for that matter at a fruit fly, does not mean that there are more than one elephant, Mount Everest, or fruit fly. To the contrary, the very form of the sentence implies that the thing being looked at is the same, only the position of the onlookers (and for that matter their ability to see) being different.

[privatemaladict]

Yes, but morality is somewhat more complex than an elephant, Mount Everest or a fruit fly. What you're looking at isn't always clear. As you said, morality can be hard to establish, which means that is some ares you'll never really know if you're right or not. Some morals are, or should be, true for everyone - such as robbing old ladies. Whichever way you look at it, that's gotta be wrong, right? Other issues, however, aren't quite as clear-cut. (Don't worry, I'm not trying to stir you up - just trying to establish the difference between pluralism and relativism. I've had it explained to me, and I KNOW there's a difference - but I'm having a good deal of truoble expressing myself.)

[denise_richards]

But you oppose it on more of a pragmatic level, don't you? It's not that the moral relativists are necessarily "wrong", just that it would be inconvenient if everyone became one and "justified" themselves as they went on their own little murder rampages... (Then again, [insert Categorical Imperitive quote here].)

[denise_richards]

That is, "Imperative".

[fpb]

No. I am sorry to have to disappoint you, but I am a member of the Catholic Church and believe in an absolute standard of morality, although I also believe that no one human being (except for Jesus Christ) can ever understand it all in this lifetime.