[extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism

[Brian Lee]

I think if you remove, religion, nationalism and bunch of other factors your 
historical examples of mass murder in the pursuit of absolute Truth 
dissolve. So then I ask, is it the absolute Truth that is bad, or the 
nationalism behind it? Or the perceived science behind it? Etc etc.

This type of reasoning if frequently heard for why organised religion is so 
bad, and so forth.

Of course it is obligatory of me to point out how civil rights activists 
were "Champions of the Truth". No mass murder and the biggest US reform in 
the second half of the 20th century.

BAL

>From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com>
>To: Brian Lee <brian_a_lee at hotmail.com>, ExI chat list 
><extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral relativism
>Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:31:43 +0200
>
>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