[MD] Marsha's Relativism

[Matt Kundert]

Well, I don't know Marsha, I think you're being a little harsh--I think Steve is just genuinely interested in figuring out where you're at (not everyone is).  I mean, a few moments ago everybody was asking for a definition of relativism, including you, and this was Steve's attempt to give one.

> From: valkyr at att.net
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:43:37 -0400
> Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's Relativism
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> What is this but a version of the Aristotelian Two-Step?  If you would like
> a serious response, I  might answer yes, no and all of the above.  Or I
> might think this from LILA is a suitable answer:  
> 
> "While sustaining biological and social patterns
>  Kill all intellectual patterns.
>  Kill them completely
>  And then follow Dynamic Quality
>  And morality will be served."
>     (RMP, Chapter 32)
> 
> 
>  
>  
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:02 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: [MD] Marsha's Relativism
> 
> Hi Marsha, DMB,
> 
> Do you believe that moral assertions can have truth-value? For example, 
> do you see statements like "slavery is evil" as either true or false in 
> the same way that assertions of fact such as "2 is the smallest prime 
> number" is either true or false?
> 
> If you take X to be some such proposition, do you see any of the 
> following to be problematic?
> (1) Bob is justified in believing X given his context, but X is not 
> true.
> (2) X is true for Bob but not true for Rich
> (3) I used to be justified in believing X, but X is not true and never 
> was true.
> (4) I am now justified in believing X, but X may turn out to be false
> 
> I would say that if you see no problem with any of these, your view 
> would typically be called relativism. I think that anyone who objects 
> to 2 but sees nothing wrong with 1, 3, or 4 is using the usual 
> understanding of truth and it's relationship to justification but may 
> still be called relativism by some. If so, I would call this second 
> version of relativism the good kind and the first version the bad kind.
> 
> The bad kind of relativism says that a proposition can be true to one 
> person and false to another while the good kind admits that belief in a 
> proposition may be justified for one person but not justified for 
> another but holds that truth is another matter entirely. The cure for 
> the bad kind of relativism may simply be to say, "If you think that a 
> statement like 'slavery is evil' can be both true and false at the same 
> time depending on who makes the assertion, then I don't think we both 
> mean the same thing when we use the word 'true.'"
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009