mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/28/85)
In article <1631@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >Further definitions: >MORAL SYSTEM - a set of moral principles. >MORAL PRINCIPLE - I'm unable to completely define this concept, but I > think most people would agree that a moral principle must be a > statement about the permissibility of some kind of behaviour. >To say that some moral system claims that it can be determined to be >correct amounts to claiming that one of the principles of the moral >system states that all the principles of the system can be determined >to be correct. A principle that says so is not a statement about the >permissibility of any kind of behaviour, but rather a statement about >statements about permissibility of behaviour. Therefore, it's not a >moral principle. But it is still a moral absolute (which is not necessarily a moral principle; it can be a "meta-principle"). >Your definition of absolute moral relativism, which I repeat here: >>ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that >> any particular moral system is correct. >is rather confusing. It looks like it was deliberate cooked up to have >just a sufficient amount of vagueness in all the right places so that >it could be used to draw the conclusion you want. You might try arguing >with the version of absolute moral relativism that I prefer: >ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that the truth or falsehood of a > statement of the morality or immorality of some action cannot > be demonstrated objectively. All right. I think it is reasonable to accept the principle that a moral system should be consistent with respect to its own meta-principles, and also with respect to whatever other principles we accept. Absolute moral relativism as defined above becomes an absolute. If we accept this principle as being true, than we can derive logically from it that any moral principle derived from the claim that "some principle is objectively evident" is in fact incorrect. This implies either that absolute moral relativism is incorrect, or that it cannot be proven objectively. By constrast, a limited version of relativism which says nothing about extra-system principles does not have this problem; objectively true moral principles are perfectly OK, since they can be demonstrated from outside the system. Charley Wingate "Weight has nothing to do with it."
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (08/30/85)
This is dumb, Charley! The fact that there are tautologies has nothing to
do with absolute *moral* [*moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral*
*moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* ]
principles. You can't just throw in "moral" like a noise word!
Absolute Moral Relativism is *not a moral system!* It is view *about*
moral systems. It states that it is meaningless to talk about
moral absolutes, that there is no such thing, that morals are *defined*
relative to individuals or communities. No one who believes in AMR
*has AMR as their moral system*. AMR is not a method for determining
whether behavior is {prohibited, optional, required}. Sheesh.
-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/06/85)
[Aaaaaaccccck! There's been so much posted about morality, I've fallen hopelessly behind.] >> me > Charley Wingate In article <1417@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >> You might try arguing >>with the version of absolute moral relativism that I prefer: > >>ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that the truth or falsehood of a >> statement of the morality or immorality of some action cannot >> be demonstrated objectively. > >All right. I think it is reasonable to accept the principle that a moral >system should be consistent with respect to its own meta-principles, and >also with respect to whatever other principles we accept. ... > ...If we accept this >principle as being true, than we can derive logically from it that any moral >principle derived from the claim that "some principle is objectively evident" >is in fact incorrect. Not so. Deriving a statement logically from a false premise doesn't show the statement to be false. If you show the proof of a statement to be incorrect, the statement itself could be either true or false. > This implies either that absolute moral relativism is >incorrect, or that it cannot be proven objectively. I don't think you can show that absolute moral relativism (as defined above) is incorrect, but you might be able to show that it's unprovable. -- David Canzi This has been a test of the emergency broadcasting system. It was only a test. Repeat: only a test. If this had been a real emergency, you would be dead.