Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I didn't, and I've thus far left it up to insinuation and implication by which it can be recognized. And why would I do that? I do that because in my experience, what average supporters mean by moral relativism is actually unconscious subscription to Normative Moral Relativism in which they value diversity and tolerance above all else.
This rhetorical type come back tells me we're on difference conceptual grids, and we're partially talking past each other.
And I didn't think you were implying that you were Person A in your example, but I do care what Person A thinks since there is the potential that what they think will then be applied to what they decide to do.
I knew you were, but I just wanted to point out something shorter term about the unsteadiness of the North Star. (My favorite Cepheid. Doesn't everyone have one?)
The addition was welcome. I had quite forgotten about its variability. Sadly the small town I have lived outside for almost half a century used to be three miles away. Now it is barely over two, creeping round the hill and the light pollution has destroyed much of the pleasure of looking at the night sky. (My calculations suggest that if I live to 117 I shall be in town.)
A complete idea or statement contains the act and the context. That's why it's complete.
Why would you think that?
Your point was that a single word which describes an act under certain circumstances can be classed as absolute morality. Whereas it is plainly obvious that the term contains the context on which we base our opinion on the morality of the act.
I don't remember expressing any point about a "single word describing an act under certain circumstances can be classed as absolute morality."
You might need to take into consideration that what often passes for 'moral relativism' in many people's minds isn't something I hold as significant, due to my own educational and source influences. So, what you might think is significant, I won't see that it is, and I won't tell you why that is the case because I don't want to have to write out a 3,000 word essay to get the point across.
Ok. You've made your point about my apparent 'simplicity of mind' more than once. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop coming at me that way. I know you're a smart guy, but I've read and studied too many ....... ***cough*** ....... Marvel Comics as a part of my education in my lifetime to allow myself to be repetitively steam-rolled.
Post 364
It was defined very early in the piece. Any Google search will do
If you think some acts are absolutely wrong, for whatever reason, and we're talking of acts that aren't determined by the context, then go for it. All You've done so far is offer variations of 'Oh no it isn't'. Put forward a case for an absolute morality.
I haven't used ANY term yet in. ............. isolation .................
Nope. You're still reading into what I've said and telling me that what you think I've implied is what I actually meant to imply. Unfortunately, like General Ross, you're still not grasping my point and in your misunderstanding you've become non-plussed, forging ahead double time.
You did. Torture and murder. You implied I thought that, because it's a relative matter (killing in the context as described), then there could be a morally acceptable murder.
Then nail something to the mast for heaven's sake...
I wouldn't put non-cognitivists in the same category as moral relativists, would you? If not, then there are more than 2 alternatives.
I see all moral statments as descriptions of the one making them (perhaps you could call them that persons wishes, prescriptions?), not reality.
Perhaps, we are.
I was going to agree with you. To the point at which I quoted the above and started to type. Then I noticed the 'not reality'. I agree with everything before that. But if my moral statements (or yours) are descriptions of the personal morality and that we could describe them as prescriptive as it relates to the individual ('Don't do that because I think it's wrong) then whence the 'not reality'?
I guess it is a bit ambiguous. No, I mean't some sort of reality outside of the person. Dare I say, not objective reality? You can just disregard the reality part, because I do think it says something about my moral stance in reality. I just don't think it one can draw any claims on universality from it. I haven't discussed these questions since pre-2008, so I'm somewhat rusty in my vocabulary.
