Foul hypocrisy? If genocide is not objectively wrong, your words really have no meaning to me. I could sit here and say it is my opinion that you are foul for judging me. We could go back and forth all day.
Now you know why you, nor anyone else can live as a true moral relativist. My point to you has been made.
It is just your opinion that genocide is wrong. You also acknowledge that others may disagree with you and have the right to do so.
That is why this argument is so powerful. You cannot even bring yourself to say that genocide is objectively wrong, even though you know it is. You cannot even agree to premise two, but would rather have us all believe it is just your opinion that genocide is wrong.
Why not just say that premise (2) is more plausibly true than its denial? What do you lose by agreeing with that?
1. I have continually stressed the point that the discussion on whether morality is objective or subjective can proceed without talk about supernatural entities. I have even alluded to the discussion between Williams and McDowell on external and internal reasons for action. Your depiction of me as some sort of moral relativist who thinks that all opinions are equally justified is a strawman.
2. You have demonstrated that you do not affirm premise (2). I will repeat what I said earlier: If you call genocide 'good' when your God commands it, and insist that it is 'evil' otherwise, then that is not an objective moral system. Instead it is system in which morality is defined by obedience to a divine despot.
3. Yes, foul hypocrisy. Asking me to contemplate whether genocide is objectively wrong, right after you have told me that you would participate in a genocide, reeks of hypocrisy. Insisting that some despicable act is objectively wrong regardless of the specific circumstances surrounding that act, but then making excuses for why it is 'good' when commanded by a deity, reeks of hypocrisy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0