vibratetogether wrote:
I never conceded that they were valid. Looking at my quote, I don't see how you could conclude that. There is certainly a place for this viewpoint, and you are of course, welcome to hold this opinion and opine on it. However, when it comes to the real world, it is my view (and also imo the view of any rational person) that morality is relative.
Morality is first of all a normative and therefore lacks any kind of basis in empirical reality, so assigning any kind of existence relative or otherwise is nonsense. I might rather argue the only rational position is moral skepticism, on the one hand, and a descriptive view when it comes to observation of human society on the other. Since neither of those makes a proscription, any further pursuit of the point is pointless.
Quote:
That is not to say that we should not hold opinions (even very strong opinions), or that we should not fight for our own version of morality, I think that's only natural. My problem is that this absolutist view does not account for my views, while my view would account for the absolutists.
It is not the "duty" aspect that I find absurd, in fact I would argue for some link between our sense of "duty" and our base nature, so it's not absurd so much as a false conclusion based on some hint of truth. It is the idea that there is some structured absolute "right" or "wrong" that I find absurd.
If you can find a system which involves proscriptions without valuations I'd like to hear it.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
01 Jun 2009, 4:26 pm
