Philosophy Now Forum

Members of different cultures with different values and beliefs come into frequent conflict, sometimes violent. Exploiter or entrepreneur? Murderer or martyr? “Great Satan” or “Great – Santa!” Gerald Lang asks if we can still pass judgment.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/36/Mora ... Chauvinism

Philosophy Now wrote:Members of different cultures with different values and beliefs come into frequent conflict, sometimes violent. Exploiter or entrepreneur? Murderer or martyr? “Great Satan” or “Great – Santa!” Gerald Lang asks if we can still pass judgment.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/36/Mora ... Chauvinism

Is it not that case that everyone who has a sense of moral right or wrong must believe that his/her moral values are absolute? And, connecting from the other PN article discussion 'How can I know anything at all?' it strikes me as odd that people who insist on the impossibility of absolute knowledge (I'm thinking here of proponents of 'faith') are very often the ones who claim to know what 'absolute morality' is.

Gerald Lang might wish to observe the cultural suicide taking place because of his inability to judge.

Wootah wrote:Gerald Lang might wish to observe the cultural suicide taking place because of his inability to judge.

You reckon anybody in the world would commit cultural suicide because of Lang's judicial skills, or lack thereof? How important do you think the guy is, Woot?

Err, who is Gerald Lang?

keithprosser2 wrote:Err, who is Gerald Lang?

Hi Keith! He's a philosopher. Some serious publications on ethics, I believe. Hangs around Leeds & York Universities. Wrote the PN article which this thread is supposed to be about. I brazenly admit I haven't read the article, (not a subscriber) but felt like joining a discussion provoked by the title and OP.

moral relativism sounds like a convenient way of saying I can do whatever I want and justify it however I feel. For a just person that is fine.
Because no matter what you believe or what your conviction is there are universal truths that apply to everyone. Without these truths civilization would perish. moral relativism should heed universal truth and only then is it ok.
However mankind always gives us a great number of corrupt and corruptible people that oppress and influence and only play by rules as it suits them. every worthy relation is built on trust when trust is violated society pays the price and the goodness of society deteriorates. America is abundant with good because of universal human rights that its laws adhere to. There is no better place to live than America and no greater inventor of good than what America does despite its mass corruptions. Too often moral relativism is a guise for harming those who do no harm.

"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder." ~ Simone Weil

This is the easy way to solve this problem. Simply bribe people in authority to agree that those you want eliminated lack value. They will be called experts and demand that the people agree with these experts. Then just kill those deemed to lack value and the problem is solved.