I just corrected you on what you had put into my mouth.
That´s debatable.
...except that we are talking about absolute moral truths, not absolute truths in general...
I think you have to make up your mind. You alternatively argue for shared/consensed moral views or for "absolute" truths, and sometimes you picture the absence of the former or the latter as the problem.
I´m all for striving to come to an agreement on basic ethical tenets, and here in Western Europe we are doing very well in that respect. People are increasingly educated, people think for themselves, and if ethics isn´t arbitrarily decreed ethics can be expected to make some sense tzo thinking people. That´s where people meet.
Not to mention that your glorified "consensus" in history was never a consensus, but a view imposed by the powerful ones on the powerless ones. It was a "consensus" among the upper 5% who had 100% of the power. The rest wasn´t even asked, and since they were kept uneducated and instead threatened with earthly and divine punishment in case of disagreeing, they wouldn´t have an informed opinion, anyway.
No, it doesn´t prevent consensus by any means. It just prevents people from forcing their views on others. Au contraire, moral relativism emphasizes the importance of striving for a consensus (as opposed to establishing a consensual or non-consensual morality by means of authoritative decree). This isn´t an easy task - but with people appealing to the authority of different Gods it doesn´t get exactly easier.
Mulit-cultural societies are a reality. This is not the making of post modernism. Post modernism just acknowledges it.
If we are talking about objective truths this doesn´t follow at all. All natural laws are unaffected by consensus or dissens.
If, however, we are talking about agreements for the sake of preventing chaos: we can do this easily without having a theoretical basis for right or wrong. E.g. we can simply agree to drive on the right (or the left) without even touching the question whether one of these solutions is theoretically right or wrong.
Not a problem of consensus or dissens. If there were a consensus that tooth ache is to be cured by cutting off the head it would be done, as well.
But fortunately you are just dreaming up horror-scenarios that don´t have anything to with the reality in our countries, anyway.
There is enough consensus to make our societies function (with the longest period without wars in our history; with comparably low violence rates, with a strong emphasis on personal growth and development; with a lot of spare time to use for whatever inspires you; with long life spans; with incredible offers of education available for every, for free; with a lot of wealthy people, few poor ones, and a lot who get along quite fine; with a huge diversity of spiritual and philosophical offers to pick from - most all of which are circled around empathy and compassion).
There are plenty of broadly agreed upon moral and ethical values that manifest in this reality (even though they may not be the values you or I personally hold in high regards).
I do understand, though, that - to you personally - diversity is frightening. That doesn´t make it a fundamental societal or philosophical problem, though.
That´s certainly correct.
Personally, however, I´ll take the temporary absence of a consensus and the hassle of striving for a new, good one over a bad consensus any day.
Whatever. It seems to me that the whole consensus thing is just a smoke screen on your part. The problem you have is that the existing consensus is not to your liking; just like I wouldn´t, you wouldn´t accept whatever consensus just for consensus´ sake. You goal isn´t consensus per se, but consensus on basis of your personal moral views (and if a consensus can not be had, you´d be fine with what you personally consider good moral views forced on everyone - just like it used to be in the gool ol´ times). That´s fine with me, but it renders your entire appeal to "consensus" as the most important criterium hollow.
And since moral relativism and post modernism don´t make a case against consensus, anyway (but just state the obvious: that not all people agree, and that those who postulate an absolute morality can´t come up with a convincing method to establish such - but just with appeals to the earthly or allegedly divine authority of their preference -, and therefore all we can do is strive for a consensus that recognizes everyone´s needs), you are beating an entire herd of dead horses.
Upvote
0