[extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

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.

On 4/29/05, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> >
> > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that
> > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say
> > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth
> > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and
> > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas,
> > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The
> > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid
> > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas.
> >
> > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of
> > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The
> > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different.
>
> That's a complete non-sequitur.  Morality exists within a human mind.
> Reality, as best we can figure out how it works, was around at least 13
> billion years before ever humans showed on the scene.  I'm not sure what
> "absolute truth" is but if you define it in such a way that it equates to
> "external reality" then I'm all for external reality.
>
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence