[MD] Marsha's Relativism

[david buchanan]

Steve said to dmb:
I wasn't saying that a moral claim is no different from a statement of mathematical fact. What I was suggesting is that there is no difference in what we mean by the word 'true' in the sentences "it is true that slavery is wrong" and "it is true that 2+2=4." Obviously, the sentences are very different, but I think 'true' is used in the same way in both. Do you agree or do you think that there is a difference in usage of 'true' in these two sentences?

dmb says:
Yea, I definitely think there is a huge difference in the usage of "true" in those two sentences for the reason already stated. One is a moral claim about human suffering and the other is true by virtue of mathematical definitions. 



Steve said:
When pragmatists of Rorty's brand decline to propose a theory of truth and justification, it is because they doubt that there is anything to know about truth or justification once we've learned how to use these words and once we've learned how these words function in language. What I was trying to establish in my numbered sentences is a consensus about how these words are used since the tradition of pragmatism suggests to me that if we want to answer the question "what does this mean?" we might consider asking the question "how is this used?" instead.

dmb says:
Hmmm. I don't get that either. Isn't it true that words mean what they mean precisely because of the way they're used? To my mind, that just what "meaning" means. I mean, asking what it means and asking how its used is the same question so I don't understand what it means to replace one with the other. 
Steve said:
The distinction between belief, justification, and truth is usually considered in discussion of knowledge. There may be other ways of talking about knowledge but I think knowledge is generally taken in philosophy class to be "justified true belief," where each of these three terms is important. For more info, see: http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#JTB

dmb says:
Oh dear. I honestly had no idea we were talking about Plato. No wonder I'm confused. 

Steve said:
As an example to distinguish justification from belief and to answer your question 'How can Bob be "justified" in believing what is "not true"?' consider this situation: Bob is a member of a jury where the defense attorney did a horrible job. Bob may be justified in believing that the defendant is guilty when in fact the defendant is innocent. We are always in such a position as Bob where we don't know what we don't know, so we CAN be justified in believing things that are actually false.



dmb says:

Well, if the defense attorney did a horrible job then I really think it would be wrong to say Bob's false beliefs are not at all "justified". We can sympathize with Bob and we can understand the reason he came to believe what isn't true but "justified" is not the right word for that. In fact, convicting an innocent man is pretty much the definition of the opposite term. That would be unjust and would be considered an injustice. 

 
_________________________________________________________________
With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.
http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery