[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Steve,

On 17 Aug 2009 at 10:01, Steve Peterson wrote:

> 
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 1:26 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Once again, what is your definition of relativism?
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> 
> Hi Marsha,
> 
> I would like to see the term dropped from our vocabulary in part  
> because it is so unclear what anybody means by the term and part  
> because I'd like to see SOM, the philosophical system on which the  
> term is based, dropped altogether. In every day usage, it just seems  
> to be a catch-all term for anyone a conservative disagrees with.
> 
> In philosophy, my take is that relativism-absolutism is just another  
> version of subjective-objective. It is the same question as asking if  
> the quality is in the subject or the object. The claim that truth and  
> morality are just subjective (relativism) is self-defeating because  
> that claim itself then must be viewed as just subjective and needn't  
> be taken seriously. So I don't think anyone should want to call  
> herself a "relativist" because such a person will not be taken to  
> even believe herself when she calls herself that.
> 
> In the MOQ, however, absolutism-relativism is one of those  
> philosophical platypi that get dissolved to the point where you  
> wonder why you even asked the question to begin with. Are morals  
> cultural constructs? Of course they are, but so are atoms and  
> mathematics. It doesn't mean that there aren't true and false things  
> to be said about them. There is no problem for moral claims as well  
> as factual claims to be thought of as having truth-value, so the MOQ  
> denies relativism. And we can make such claims without imagining such  
> essences as Natural Law or The Moral Law for such claims to try to  
> conform to, so the MOQ also denies absolutism.
 
Except in this passage from Lila:

"But what's not so obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics 
of Quality, it is absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the 
patient.This is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to 
some doctors but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all 
cultures. It's true for all people at all times, now and forever, a moral 
pattern of reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with morals on the 
basis of reason. We can now deduce codes based on evolution that 
analyze moral arguments with greater precision than before." (Lila 13)

That aside as an anomaly, I agree with your analysis. Very clearly and
succinctly said. A keeper.

Still the belief in relativism among the elite is used to excuse all sorts of 
aberrant beliefs and behaviors. It's the basis of diversity and 
multiculturism, the twin evils of modern Western society.

Regards,
Platt