[extropy-chat] Re: In defense of moral relativism

[Mike Lorrey]

I realize that there are moral objectivists on the left. Generally
those who advocate greater liberty one way or another do so for
principled reasons that they generally base on some objective truth
they hold dearly to, whether or not they recognise it as such. The real
bastions of moral relativism are the mushy middle and the totalitarian
corner of the Nolan Chart. The totalitarians recognise no valid
morality, they are all about power, being essentiall fascists, while
the mushy middle is so often their malleable clay to mold with fear
mongering propaganda or decadent blandishments.

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike, I think you are so staunchly against moral relativism because
> you perceive it as something lefty.
> But note that historically the Left has been very much against moral
> relativism: accept moral relativism, and you weaken the power of the
> State as you can no longer believe its claim to be the Guardian of
> the
> Truth. I suspect many historic Left thinkers would have been against,
> say, gay marriage.
> Moral relativism has been introduced in the Left by relatively modern
> thinkers who also believed in individual liberty and civil rights,
> which you as a Libertarian should support.
> G.
> 
> On 5/4/05, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This is the rotten core of moral relativism: that the only crime is
> > hypocrisy, that it is somehow impossible to judge one moral code
> > against another for greater or lesser adherence to objective truth.
> > When all morals are of equal validity, then any crime against
> humanity
> > is not only possible, but not to be condemned if one can
> rationalize a
> > moral position for it.
> > 
> > To condemn, say, the Nazis, for morally justifying their genocide,
> or
> > Pol Pot for his, or Mao, Stalin, you name it, is not moral
> relativism,
> > it is holding a standard, a conviction, of what is objectively
> moral or
> > not.
> > 
> > --- Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think the only morality that can be logically condemned in a
> moral
> > > relativist system is that of hypocrisy. Since each person has
> their
> > > own
> > > moral system they cannot be condemned. Unless they first profess
> > > their moral
> > > system, then act contrary to it.
> > >
> > > BAL
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> > >
> > 
> > Mike Lorrey
> > Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> > It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
> >                                       -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> > Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com