pretentious philosophy discussion

[Straight-8]

Str8, I think you mean Zeno (of Elea) aka Mr. NoMo o' Paradox in current parlance.

No No I mean Zenon - the guy with the light-bulb. Ok ok I meant Zeno. It's just that the thought of him only got half way to my brain; and then half way again; and then half way again etc etc etc. It apparently never quite got here!

 

[silverwhisper]

eudamonia: i've always enjoyed yet been amused by zeno's paradox. :>

de valmont: i'm alternately an atheist/agnostic, depending on my mood. :> that said, i still find utility in having the words available, b/c while i believe in moral relativism, i also believe that morality exists on a spectrum at which the two opposed ends are those, while many things lie somewhere in the middle. i believe that value in being able to make a moral pronouncement, of saying a thing is so beneficial/detrimental as to quality for either word. JMHO.

ed

 

[eudaemonia]

eudamonia: i've always enjoyed yet been amused by zeno's paradox. :>

Yuhp. That Zeno is a funny guy. Lots funnier than Berkeley (woof!).

b/c while i believe in moral relativism, i also believe that morality exists on a spectrum at which the two opposed ends are those, while many things lie somewhere in the middle. i believe that value in being able to make a moral pronouncement, of saying a thing is so beneficial/detrimental as to quality for either word.

A leetle (and respectfully posed) challenge: I've never met anyone who truly meant it when they said their believed in or were moral relativists. If you can explain how that is so, I'm all ears.

 

[silverwhisper]

eudamonia: as i mentioned, i do so consider myself one, although please note that i did qualify it. :> now, it's likely you and i are using that term differently, so let me tell you how i'm using it. it's possible i'm using it improperly. since you're a phil major, i understand that these things are of particular interest to you. :>

what this means for me is that i try to understand things within their respective contexts. at some point however, i am necessarily unable to make the leap necessary to shed some of my givens (e.g., rape to me will always be evil). and frankly, i'm OK with that. some givens that i have i actively cherish.

anyway, i hope that answers your question.

ed

 

[eudaemonia]

Consider the question answered, sw.

Objective ethical standards are true because they are true in every case. You hold rape, by its very definition as coerced sex, as always being wrong. But that doesn't account for context, which is what you're claiming makes you a relativist. Conflating context with relativism is very common.

If you were truly a moral relativist, you'd say that because life has no meaning then anything goes. But you haven't said that at all, and I'd be very surprised if you even claimed that the predicate clause -- life is meaningless -- is true.

What you have said is that you try to understand the context of every situation. This is natural and what most humans do. So here's a thought experiment to try: Are there any possible contexts in which rape is morally acceptable? I thought of one possible situation, which (*spoiler alert*) I couldn't ultimately defend. I present it only as an example of how I first started to think about the proposition.

Suppose you were walking alone in a park, minding your own business. Suddenly someone pulls a gun on you and gives you the following ultimatum: Either you subdue and rape the woman jogger who's now approaching or your fucking brains will be splattered all over kingdom come. Not knowing with 100% certainty what's in the mind of the gunman, in your adrenaline rush, it comes down to this: Rape or die. So you rape.

The act is still wrong, but the ethics of the situation are such that because the wrongdoing was committed by proxy, you aren't acting unethically. Self-preservation is an extremely strong and rational instinct. To deliberately override that in the case where you were sure you'd die is bordering on nihilism. Even then, if the potential rape victim were your child or your wife or your mother ... you can see where this is going. Values are inextricably linked to the maintenance and defense of life. Therefore, life isn't meaningless.

So that's a case where the moral judgment of the act remains the same (rape is always wrong) but the ethical evaluation of the situation has ultimately shifted from one actor onto another.

I'll keep thinking about moral relativism and get back to the thread if any else occurs to me. Ethics of emergencies is a fascinating topic.

As for the problem of evil ... that's one of the perennial biggies in the history of philosophy. It'd be nice if we could settle it here on Lit but I'm thinking maybe I'd just as soon let better minds than mine solve the problem of evil. I have a G-spot to explore.

 

[silverwhisper]

eudaemonia:

i would prefer to die rather than become an agent of evil. i still have a choice: either do evil, or force the guy with the gun to show whether he's bluffing. whatever the case, that isn't something on which i would compromise. at least, i'd like to think i would, anyway.

that said, i don't believe it's possible to say a person either is/isn't a moral relativist. i don't accept the idea that it's a boolean proposition.

ed