esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (02/22/85)
[well, sort of] From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) > > > If I start with assumptions derived from sociobiology, that there is > > > evolution of and natural selection upon behavior, beliefs, and customs, > > > then relativism is the natural conclusion. [him] > > > > Whaaaa? Wanna run that (cough) "logic" by me again? [me] > Because different groups live in different environments, the selective > forces upon their behaviors, beliefs and customs will differ. [him] Whoops! Mea culpa. I was mistaken about your understanding of the term "relativism". I have no quarrel with you now that I see what you meant. Your reply to Mc Kiernan (below) cleared things up for me. > By this [Mc Kiernan's] definition, I too am an Absolutist, with the usual > caveats about all current systems being approximations. > I gave a definition of relativism that (unfortunately) turns out to be > ambiguous. The dictionary definition I used is "a view that ethical truths > depend on the individuals and groups holding them." The interpretation I > intended is not that there are different absolute truths for different > individuals and groups, but that what they identify as truths are different > because of who they are. > By that definition, Absolutism and relativism are not incompatable nor > opposite. [Mike Huybensz] I thought you intended the other interpretation; the same one Mc Kiernan apparently thought you intended. --Paul V. Torek, wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Don't hit that 'r' key! Send any mail to this address, not the sender's.