Got a wordddd for yaaa

THE PARADOX OF MORAL RELATIVISM

“… would it be all that bad if Satan Worshipers started banging on doors, stopping people in the streets, and doing whatever?” The Ponderer

Presupposed in The Ponderer’s question about some religious believers’ irritating habits of banging on doors, stopping people in the streets and so on, is another unannounced belief, one which is simply assumed rather than argued. What is that belief? It is the belief in moral relativism, the belief that no distinction can be validly made between religious believers on the one hand and Satan Worshipers on the other. In other words, no distinction can be made between religious belief understood as embodying the ideals constitutive of the good moral life and Satan Worshipers understood as embodying either the ideals constitutive of the evil moral life or the simple absence of the ideals constitutive of that good moral life. In still other words, no distinction can be validly made between good and evil. But is this true? Is it even coherent? I would argue not.

The empirical fact of the matter, of course, is that all civilizations, ours included, rest upon moral principles even if phrased in tired old expressions such as, “Do unto others as you would be done by”. But even secular society, once conceived without reference to formal religion, possesses a vision of the good moral life as embodied, in the case of Canada for example, in “peace, order and good government”. At the level of the individual the good moral life is embodied in our principles of justice where it is equated with rationality itself. To be guilty of a crime, to do evil in other words, can be the verdict only in those cases where the perpetrator was “not of sound mind,” i.e., not rational. So those ideals constitutive of the good moral life are part of our mental baggage, that which defines us as who we are and so the option to either entertain them or reject them is empirically incoherent.

But moral relativism is also incoherent in another, philosophical, level since it embodies the belief in the suspension of belief which, in effect, is the belief in no belief at all. It is the belief in a moral vacuum. But, as at the social level, this is impossible. Man is, at base, “homo credens” or man the believer. To believe is part of his human nature. He must believe in something or descend into a state of psychopathy, i.e., madness. Therefore, the advocate of moral relativism counsels philosophical self-contradiction, the end of rationality and, by extension, the encouragement of moral nihilism. Of course, a brief reading of recent German history reveals what joys moral nihilism brings in its train.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Captain (06/27, 12:53AM)

” How does Montreaman know, unequivocally, what reality is? Where is the evidence to support his view of reality?” Captain

While initially coherent in his claim that the question as to what reality is is an epistemological issue, Captain has failed to understand that epistemology is parasitic on ontology, the nature of reality itself. The two cannot be separated. What is to count as knowledge, as grounds for one’s truth claims, depends upon one’s conception of that in respect to which such knowledge claims are made. But Captain will never understand this.

As expected, Captain has a materialistic conception of both ontology and epistemology when he demands “evidence” to support my view. What would such “evidence” look like? Is it empirical evidence? Is it measureable or quantifiable in some sense? Evidence based upon rationality? Who knows? He goes on, self-refutingly, to provide no evidence for his claim that my claim is “equivalent to a fart in the wind.” Where’s the evidence? Could it be that the demand for such “evidence” is itself misplaced, is internally incoherent? I know that he will never understand this.

Incoherently in view of the fact that Captain is unable to provide some conception as to what would count as evidence or even what the thing would look like, he then goes on to assert that my claim that I am not a geologist constitutes evidence to the effect that I am incoherent. How does he know this? On what evidential grounds does he make the attribution? Surely one’s occupation is irrelevant to the veracity of one’s truth claims but, unsurprisingly, irrelevance as with so much else seems to have escaped Captain’s conscious awareness. I know that he will never understand this.

In the same vein Captain concludes with the airy global assertion that I am “unable to interpret others properly” but – wait for it – he gives no evidence to support the claim. Captain fails to grasp the fundamental epistemological point that one must support one’s assertions with evidence if such assertions are to have any substance. I know that he will never understand this.

In conclusion he utters another howler in claiming that I don’t respond to what others are trying to say, only to what I think they are saying. But on what other grounds, pray tell, is it ever possible for one to respond to anything at all? But Captain is silent on the issue. He is unable to resolve the conundrum. I know that he will never understand this.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Captain (06/27, 4:35PM)

“Another fart that holds no evidence to support your claim of (sic) understanding reality.”

Read the second paragraph of my post of (06/27, 3:43PM) over again. You demand “evidence” to support my claim to understand “reality” and I ask, “What would such evidence look like? Is it empirical evidence? Is it measurable or quantifiable in some sense? Evidence based upon rationality? Who knows?” It is impossible to answer your charge unless you clarify what you understand by “evidence”. So that’s your first task: What, in your view, would count as “evidence” to refute my claim to understand reality?

Now, go back to my first paragraph where I pointed out that “epistemology is parasitic on ontology, the nature of reality itself. The two cannot be separated.” Do you see it? Do you understand it? Do you know what it means? It means that what is to count (or not) as evidence for any epistemological claim – any knowledge claim – depends upon that in respect to which such knowledge claims are made. But what it that in respect to which knowledge claims are made? It is called “reality.” So that is your second task: You must give an account of your conception of reality itself.

I await your substantive reply to both tasks with anticipation where by “substantive”, I mean an honest attempt to engage the question(s) and not simply an empty retort which, sadly, is what I’m expecting.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Captain (06/28, 12:39PM)

The Philosophy Exam: Part A: What is Evidence? (50%), Part B: What is reality? (50%)

Part A: As I expected, in spite of the fact that you were the one who continually demanded evidence you were unable to specify what it was. Contrary to what you assert, it is YOUR responsibility since, to repeat, you were the one who continually demanded evidence. That is being incoherent. You cannot demand evidence from somebody for something if you don’t know what the evidence would look like. Mark: 0/50

Part B: At least you tried to give a definition of reality but, and also as I expected, you have a physicalist or materialist interpretation. Your concept of reality reduces in effect to “matter, energy and information”. But look at your attempt to explain reality itself. Would you call that simply matter, energy and information”? Of course not. Matter, energy and information are passive where your attempt to explain reality was active. What is missing? Your mind is missing. You seem to nibble at the notion of mind by reference to “interpretation” but give primacy to brute matter, energy and information. Put differently, your physicalist interpretation of reality is impotent to explain reality since it is a philosophical concept necessarily engaging BOTH the mind and matter. It is not a physicalist concept “simpliciter” as we say in Latin. Mark: 25/50

Not bad. Low perhaps but it’s a start.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!