Daniel has a post in the New Blog Showcase, all about Moral Relativism, which I must admit I knew nothing about until I read it.
I've never really been all that big on morals, as such. Probably because I dislike being told my behavior is "good" or "bad" by the group mindset. I do understand how in the bigger sense morals are necessary. I guess I just object to them at the point they try to tell me how to think or feel.
I'm a big Situational Ethics girl... but don't tell Daniel. I have a feeling he could debate my sorry ass into the ground.
The problem with Moral Relativism is that it also claims an absolute - that all moral judgements are relative. Adherents claim that, for example, murdering your daughter because she smiled at a boy is acceptable if that is part of your culture, and that those who do not belong to that culture have no right to judge such an action.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at September 17, 2003 07:50 AMThis is what I like... if I keep associating with smart people, I'm going to learn stuff. :)
Thanks, Pixy.
Uh-oh... I found out :) (I'll post more on my site Friday)
Like the Chicago nod in the title!
My father once told me I had the morals of a dog.
Posted by: Greg at September 17, 2003 09:37 PMThat means undying loyalty, right?
Greg, your blog has a very google-esque feel to it.
Posted by: Daniel at September 18, 2003 06:25 AMLeeAnn, I wrote a post in February that talked about moral relativism. I'm linking because I think the story of Werner Heisenberg working for Hitler is such a definitive example.
If you're interested you can read it here:
http://blatherreview.mu.nu/archives/2003_02.html
(or, just go to Blather Review and click on the February archives. It's the top post; "Who Are We To Do This".
P.S. I was deliberately trying to write like Bill Whittle...maybe it shows. ;)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 18, 2003 04:37 PMThanks! but... Bill who? :)
Posted by: LeeAnn at September 18, 2003 04:46 PM