MD Re: Is Morality relative?

From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 03:59:14 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD The Quality of Capitalism?"

    Platt, Horse

    Erin:

    > Platt,
    >
    > Fear, terror maybe, Envy hardly.
    >
    > Ian

    Right, like the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Hussein, Bin Laden and other
    delightful characters of contemporary history.

    Platt
    First that above was Ian not Erin. Second as for this..

    PLATT: Anathema to absolutes is caused by youthful rebellion against parental
    authority?
    I think you're on to something. But, perhaps it's time to grow up and conc
    ede that there are absolutes of right and wrong, as Pirsig says.

     "Growing up is a trap, when they tell you to shut up, they mean stop talking.
    When they tell you to grow up, they mean stop growing.
    Reach a nice level PLATeau [emphasis mine;] and settle there, predictable
    and unchanging, no longer a threat.
    If Sissy is immature, it means she's still growing; if she's still growing,
    it means that she's still alive. Alive in a dying culure." TOM ROBBINS

    HORSE: Could I ask you to be a bit more specific about what you mean by
    the 'contextualist argument'.
    An earlyish post of mine gives one definition of contextualism http://alt.
    venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9912/0147.html ) but this
    may not be what you mean.

    ERIN: I really can't be more specific because I don't know much about it.
    The idea of context being important is not new to me but I was not aware
    of contextualism until the little I heard of it right now. Do you know is there a
    good book/philosopher that you recommend in learning more about it?

    But reading your exchange with Platt, the question/response that I find
    most interesting is to the question of

    PLATT: 93Do you think there are any universal moral truths,
    i.e., truths that are not contextual?

    ERIN: Are you saying the question is not about whether universals exist
     or not but the question really is whether they exist outside of context?
    I am not really clear about how absolutism and contextualism goes
    together still---- that is if you believe one can you believe the other
    ..do absolutists argue that there are universals outside context and if
    so not sure how you can you be an absolutist and a contextualist?

    Another thing that I am not sure about is when they say something that is
    absolute---are there certain aspects absolute or what? That is in Platt's 101 book it was
    defined-- In
    ethics, the position that there are universal ethical standards that apply to all men so
    what is absolute is to who it applies to but that is not what I find objectionable about
    absolutes it is more the time aspect. To really accept the MOQ as provisional, I don't
    see how you accept it as absolute. So maybe there can be some explanation about
    what absolute means or refers to.

    To me it seems there may be absolutes when looking at the past but not the
     future.

    Erin

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 14:38:52 GMT