rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/11/85)
> Muffy's hypothesis makes no sense to me. One only arrives at her > hypothetical culture by killing off those who disagree with Nazism. [DUBUC] One only arrives at a hypothetical culture in which Judaeo-Christian morality is the "norm" by doing something similar. (If not killing, ???) > We tend more often to think in terms of absolute morality when considering > human rights without which your less melodramatic situations couldn't even > be considered. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution > considered life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be among these > "inalienable" rights. What place do inalienable rights have in moral > relativism? I agree with Gary that it is indeed a dangerous philosophy (or > "way of thinking" or whatever). Fact is, our notions involving the inalienable rights described above ARE an example of moral relativism. One which we happen to like. I think its edge is that it stands up better rationally than other moralities that foster abuse of individuals or groups. And true minimal morality, the notion that one person's rights to act end when they interfere with another person's rights, stands up even better that the set of restrictions we've got now. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr