Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 472978" data-attributes="member: 6533">RelativismI always saw relativism as a particular slant on the I like beer and you like champagne slant.Relativism:  I like Beer, and you like champagne, and now there is nothing more to be said.Social Constructivism(and numerous other systems for ethic construction):  I like beer, and you like champagne, our behaviour in this regard can be modified and explored.This is a very general application of ethical systems, but I think relativism is probably a much more general approach than the question of basis for the same conclusion.The dichotomy used in my field is foundationalists vs. social constructivists.  Foundationalists hold the metaphysical view for why a thing is wrong, often characterized by Plato.  Social Constructivists believe that morality is construct and negotiated from a variety of factors including society and reality.  The basic problem is how negotiable things are or how much you can play with them.  I tend to think there is actually a synthesis between the views and that metaphysical views are probably valid but negotiable given our compromised epistemology.I like DnD's alignment system I think the arbitrary nature of it promotes thought and discussion.  Sometimes a spectacular failure is more productive than a mediocre success.As for Will's Problems, sorry I can't resist:1.) Yes, the right to defend others from aggresion is often defended and if it is simply a contingent other than it is still an attack on her person.2.) No, I hold with Thomas Aquinas and the constitution that life is right.  I hold with TA that the basic supports of that life are therefore some sort of common property.  Other avenues should be explored first, taking someone elses means to survival is bad, and stealing jam to go with your bread is suspect to bad.3.) A little trickier.  I would argue that not 'lying' in this case makes you an indiscrete, rude, and hurtful person.  However, honesty with discretion is almost certainly necessary when you are living with anyone, and if your wife is not aware of her mother's faults than she is either self-delusional or you are wrong.4.) On the surface adultery is a violation of contract recognized not simply between husband and wife but by the society at large. At heart it's probably unfaithful and dishonest.  In the head, it's not good socially as it creates weird human relationships and complicated family structures.  But a marriage can be wrong for a variety of reasons as well.  And wrong doesn't necessarily equal criminal.5.) Again I turn to TA who makes a distinction between desiring a good thing, which would be Carter's gaffe about adultery in the heart, and letting that desire become inappropriate, which would be planning on doing something evil to obtain the good thing or distracting yourself from good activity to entertain the desire.  Again not necessarily criminal.</blockquote>

Verification