Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3762451" data-attributes="member: 172">Anyone who uses absolutism as a counterpart of relativism is missing out on a lot of ethical thought. Though it's still not as simple as "realisim vs. relativism" (there's also noncognitivism, etc.), I think it better captures what they were going for.I'm failing to see the functional difference between your definition and mine. We are really saying the same thing. I say indefeasable, but if a principle is defeasible, why is it so? Because it takes into account the context of the actor, usually.What, are you afraid that I might get some knowledge on someone? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I do find that what most people refer to as absolutism is often fairly close to the textbook definition (to include the idea of absolute principles), but they are really missing out on some of the thoughtful discourse on the topic of ethical philosophy that has occurred over the centuries. If were really going to be debating moral reality, I think the discussion is well served by some exposure to some actual philosophical thought on the topic.</blockquote>