Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2014, 05:10 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(09-12-2014 04:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, if there is a viable alternative beside relativism, I would like to hear it, hence the reason for my post.
The two links at the end of my previous post would be my recommended starting point.

(09-12-2014 04:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In my view moral relativist appear to be the reflective ones, while atheists who reject relativism, appear in some sense incoherent, and non-reflective. There's a few atheists here who hold to moral relativism, and it hard for me to see any flaws in their logic or reasoning, which is not the case for those who seem to reject it.
I guess I've either been lucky in the moral realists I've been exposed to.

I do know a lot of reflective relativists, but to me they seem like they've just reached a point where they've recognized how difficult ethics is compared to the simplistic ideas they've been exposed to and have decided that the problems are insurmountable. I think that many of them would come around if the right information was presented in the right way. I am ill-equipped to do this, though.

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(10-12-2014 05:10 PM)KnowtheSilence Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 04:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, if there is a viable alternative beside relativism, I would like to hear it, hence the reason for my post.
The two links at the end of my previous post would be my recommended starting point.

I read through some of the links, and they all seem to just regurgitate things that I've heard in the past, something easily found in the Moral Landscape or elsewhere.

Do you think you would be able to defend the views expressed in those links though?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism
(11-12-2014 08:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I read through some of the links, and they all seem to just regurgitate things that I've heard in the past, something easily found in the Moral Landscape or elsewhere.
If anyone is regurgitating, it's Harris. Carrier does defend a similar central idea, but he does it much more rigorously (and earlier; he first outlines it in Sense and Goodness Without God in 2005, then presented a much more formal, peer-reviewed defense of it in The End of Christianity, which came out in July, 2011; The Moral Landscape came out in September, 2011), and there are others who were doing the same thing before Carrier. It's unfortunate that Harris is the one who gets so much credit for these ideas; it's made even more unfortunate by the fact that he does comparatively poor job of articulating and defending them.

(11-12-2014 08:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you think you would be able to defend the views expressed in those links though?
I could probably do a decent job with Carrier's theory. Did you watch any of the video?

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: