[extropy-chat] Re: moral relativism

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Claribel <claribel at intermessage.com> wrote:
> 
> With absolutism, the paradox is this: Not all absolutists agree on
> what values should be regarded as absolute. Therefore, to profess an
> absolute system of values, you must choose between different
> possible absolute value systems. But, on what criteria do you base
> this choice? They cannot be absolute criteria, for, until you have
> made the choice, you do not have absolute criteria yet. You cannot
> have absolute criteria before you have them (well, not without a
> time travel paradox.) Therefore, the principles upon which you base
> your selection of absolute principles must themselves be either
> relative, arbitrary or nonrational  (based on faith, intuition, 
> feeling, etc. As a matter of fact, it is quite common to use faith as
> a basis for absolute values.)

The invalid assumption being made here is that all absolutes are
subjective to the people choosing them, rather than that there are
inherently objective facts embedded in the universe (pi, c, G, e, i,
etc are good candidates) which are neither open to debate, nor open to
selective cherry picking by any given sentients personal philosophy.

Therefore, there is neither relativeness, arbitrariness, nor
nonrationality to do with root objectively true facts. I understand how
a post-modernist would overlook the idea that facts could exist outside
of human conception, because such facts are outside the possibility of deconstruction.

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!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs