[extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Not *always* of course. If a Champion Of The Truth is locked in jail,
he is not able to kill others. I am also willing to concede that there
are people who are convinced that they know The Truth, but choose to
be tolerant and respectful of others who do not. I don't have any
problem with them.
But my point is that conviction of knowledge of Truth *can* lead to
mass murder and *does* lead to mass murder (countless examples from
History here). So since the notion of moral Truth does not make much
practical difference for many people (for example, I am not interested
in it but try making good moral choices anyway), and can have very
dangerous consequences in the hands of others, I try to saty away from
it.
G.

On 4/29/05, Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com>
> >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Subject: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism
> >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:42:01 +0200
> >
> >I don't see what point you are making. Assuming you are referring to
> >the last paragraph quoted as a non-sequitur, let me rephrase it:
> >History shows that the convinction of being the sole depository of the
> >Truth *always* leads to mass murder. For me, this is a good enough
> >reason to keep as far from the Truth as I can.
> 
> This is inaccurate. Conviction of knowledge of Truth does not *always* lead
> to mass murder. Making overly broad, indefensible statements like this
> weakens the rest of your argument.
> 
> Additionally, in relation to mathematics and some sciences, objective Truth
> exists.
> 
> BAL