Google| Subject | Moral relativism? (Was Re:Republicanism still an offence in England?) |
| From | T.T. Arvind |
| Date | 2002-05-20 23:43 (2002-05-20 22:43) |
| Message-ID | <acbqmi$h5c$1@cpca7.uea.ac.uk> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Troels Forchhammer |
Troels Forchhammer <Troels@ThisIsFake.dk>did boldly declaim: <snip>
Troels ForchhammerYou might be surprised on the number of issues on which people from very similar cultural backgrounds can disagree.
I am sure that we would agree on most of what is right or wrong on an absolute scale - the problem is to convince others...
One of my undergraduate students said something similar last term during a class on the natural law philosophers. So, on my suggestion, the class spent half an hour trying to actually get down to the specifics of what was right and what was wrong. Even I was surprised by how little they were able to agree upon. For instance, they definitely agreed that killing was wrong, but when it came to agreeing *when* killing was justified (war? self-defence? fighting for the right of self-determination? collateral damage?), the consensus fell apart. And so it went on for nearly every issue.
Cheers,
Meneldil
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
