tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post8001127699672578366..comments2023-03-26T23:34:53.202+02:00Comments on Ad Sanitatem Gentium: State Morality and the Myth of Moral RelativismGideon Ertnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-71023890927455232732010-03-17T20:23:00.632+01:002010-03-17T20:23:00.632+01:00"Obviously, nobody enganged in political acit..."Obviously, nobody enganged in political acitivity honestly believes that anything is permissible..."<br /><br />You have a fair point. But as the last part of my post acknowledged, the real challenge to morality in modern society is not really genuine moral relativism, but rather a particular (libertine) morality which is explicitly opposed to certain moral values that feature prominently in traditional religious systems of thought, especially the teaching of the Catholic Church. The question now becomes how we can determine which moral system is superior, in terms of the ordering both of the moral life of the individual and of society as a whole. I shall compose a post on this subject presently.Gideon Ertnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-53977130570245708512010-03-17T20:13:37.693+01:002010-03-17T20:13:37.693+01:00"Your pro-life programme is tolerated thanks ..."Your pro-life programme is tolerated thanks to the liberal agenda..."<br /><br />Well, sort of... but did you know that anaesthesiologists, nurses and midwifes in Danish hospitals who are opposed to abortion are not entitled to conscience protection? So tolerance only goes so far.Gideon Ertnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-68918350617354654252010-03-13T13:29:01.218+01:002010-03-13T13:29:01.218+01:00(correction: part 1, line 3 from below, should rea...(correction: part 1, line 3 from below, should read: "... to the one exercised...")Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-31632798310029197132010-03-12T18:52:24.449+01:002010-03-12T18:52:24.449+01:00(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
I guess my point scarcely ...(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)<br /><br />I guess my point scarcely goes further than to say: who cares about the idea of moral relativism and its obvious self-contradiction - such logical bickering just goes to show that nobody seriously intends for tolerance to be all-encompassing.<br /><br />Your pro-life programme is tolerated thanks to the liberal agenda that seeks to avoid the reduction of human subjects to mere intersection points for lines of political rationality. For such an agenda, there seems to be no way around the fight to keep open a broad spectrum of tolerance - without reaching a breaking point of intolerable conflict.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-3060464781582497382010-03-12T18:50:02.688+01:002010-03-12T18:50:02.688+01:00Touché, I have to say :)
And I do mostly agree: a...Touché, I have to say :)<br /><br />And I do mostly agree: any attempt at ordering human society is bound to be, in the broadest sense of the word, totalitarian. <br /><br />Perhaps what bugs me is the whole logic-game approach to politico-ethical questions. Obviously, nobody enganged in political acitivity honestly believes that anything is permissible (which would be the consequence of the moral equivalence of all moral attitudes). Or, well, perhaps some do believe so, but then at least no political action can express this belief, assuming that politics deal with questions of how we ought to organize society.<br /><br />Anyone advocating complete moral relativism will, if the point is pressed enough, admit that what they really want is broader tolerance. You've said as much yourself.<br /><br />It just so happens that a lot of people in the liberal capitalist West tend to prefer the spectrum of tolerance that is exercised under liberal capitalist (totalitarian) rule, than the one exercised under the sovereign (totalitarian) reign of the Church. (And some opt for even broader, or perhaps merely otherwise accented tolerance).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-78346827441345842812010-03-12T00:39:57.703+01:002010-03-12T00:39:57.703+01:00Since when can statements only be either true or f...Since when can statements only be either true or false? They could also be ambiguous or even plain meaningless. In fact I never said that the statement "everything is relative" is false - merely that it is self-contradictory and thus meaningless, as is the example you site.<br /><br /><i>"Does "believing in logic" mean believing that statements refer to themselves?"</i><br /><br />I am puzzled by this question. Obviously the answer is no, and I have never implied otherwise. Whereas statements in general do not refer to themselves, any statement which seeks to say something about "everything" <i>ipso facto</i> also refers to itself.<br /><br />Now the statement "everything is relative" is obviously not the same as the statement "all moral choices are morally equivalent". But both statements attempt to express the same absurd and oxymoronic idea of the "absolute relative".Gideon Ertnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06572157722582694936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457599980035035348.post-33557853751693293732010-03-11T18:24:01.938+01:002010-03-11T18:24:01.938+01:00Nice logic trick.
Here's another one for you:
...Nice logic trick.<br />Here's another one for you:<br />"I am lying." - Do you deem the latter statement true or false?<br /><br />Does "believing in logic" mean believing that statements refer to themselves?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com