[extropy-chat] Moral relativism

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> ben wrote:
> 
> > These discussions are getting a bit too much for me - too abstract,
> 
> > too silly, too confused.
> >
> Yes, but we hope they lead to greater understanding.  Thank you for 
> posing the question, which at the lowest level may appear to be a
> simple 
> question of "right" and "wrong", while at the level of popular
> discourse 
> it may appear paradoxical as people ask themselves how they can
> possibly 
> decide which is morally correct, and at a higher level it may be seen
> 
> that the framing of the question is what limits our comprehension of 
> these issues.
> 
> > So what do the people here who call themselves moral relativists
> and 
> > moral absolutists think that Frank and Sue should decide?
> >
> Since I am neither a moral relativist nor absolutist, I'll withhold 
> further comment for now.

As a moral objectivist, I say the solution is clearly that Sue should
have the kid, and that Uncle Frank should adopt it and raise it while
Sue goes off to college. If Frank thinks life is so important, then he
needs to put his money where his mouth is. Choice "C" always works.
> 
> - Jef
> http://www.jefallbright.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail