From: G. Fried (address.removed@nowhere.tld)
Date: Thu 21 Apr 1994 - 20:34:09 EEST
G. Fried here.
You write that moral relativism does not mean that "anything goes", just that it recognizes that all moral belief systems and philosphies are "castles in the air". Relativism asks, how can one judge any such system without stepping outside of one's own, "and then what are you standing on?" Each belief system is grounded on axioms which are themselves grounded on NOTHING.
Not a bad summary of relativism (though I hope I summarized YOU fairly!). Also not a bad way to think about a Gloranthan Illuminate. And since many of us use Glorantha as a way to think about RW questions, I see this as a legitimate RQ Daily issue.
Frankly, I can't see how YOU reach the conclusion from your own argumentation that relativism does NOT mean anything goes. You say that the assertion that the Aztecs were "mighty assholes" is a "valid statement within its limitations." I take it, you mean it is "valid" as a "statement" in the sense of formal logic, and that the "limitations" which condition this validity are the axioms of the moral belief system by which we judge the Aztecs. Fair enough. But as you say, this moral system has its limitations if we are to agree with the insight of relativism (read Illumination?) -- the judgment about the Aztecs (or the broos, or the crimson bat, etc) is ultimately INVALID from the perspective of relativism, for relativism cannot accept the axioms by which the judgment is made, since it sees these axioms as themselves ultimately UNGROUNDED. Hence, relativism has no grounds of its own to stand on to say that it does NOT imply that anything goes.
Finally, I would say that not ALL philosophy need be about establishing and defending axioms, though I won't go overboard on that here! Don't want to try your patience with potentially un-Daily ruminations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:33:52 EEST