mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/21/85)
In article <754@cbosgd.UUCP> mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) writes: > 2) As any half-assed philosopher realized before he reached puberty, the > logical conclusion of Relativism is Nihilism.... I don't give a fig about whether libertarianism is a philosophy or political theory, because I think it is a crock. However, when you assault my sacred cow of relativism (:-) I must defend it from slanders. For convenience, I am basing my argument on these definitions from my Websters. relativism: a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them nihilism: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless 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. Ethical truths are not god-given absolutes, but strategies and heuristics for coping with the (extremely complicated) game-theoretic task of reproductive success. Thus, while values and beliefs are not founded in a god, they are founded in our evolution. The truth they have is the same approximate truth that any other model has. This explicitly contradicts the first clause of the definition of nihilism. By the way, nihilism has an undeserved reputation due to a past association with terrorism. Much as evolution was blackened by Social Darwinism. Existence may well be senseless and useless: but there is no reason why that should change our behavior any more than a lack of free will should change our behavior. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh