15 posts tagged ethical relativism

Why does God allow earth quakes Filed under: FOR THE BORED — bible @ 3:58 pm Why does God allow earth quakes, why does God allow evil, why does God allow us to suffer? These are all questions I used to have… Do you ever feel like your world is falling apart.

CHRISTIANITY GOING DOWN DANGEROUS ROAD- exposing emergent relativism Filed under: FOR THE BORED — bible @ 3:08 pm CHRISTIANITY GOING DOWN DANGEROUS ROAD- exposing emergent relativism str blogs reports: McLaren’s Non-Sequitur One of Brian McLaren’s answers in the AP interview USA Today carried seems to be one of the recurring themes of his writing and that of the Emergent Church.

Introduction This was a question that came up in a recent forum conversation and is a very important point in the approach I am developing here. Simply put there are no such principles, but people believe that there are, do operate unwittingly and deliberately according to such fictions and, I have

the more the BITCHES BLOCK Check out this interesting answer on Yedda Is it ethical to follow people on TWITTER that don't want to be followed? yes I do believe it is ethical to surveilance blockers of Twitter. I wasn't asking what I felt. I'm asking what you feel.

In my last post on ethical relativism, I argued that species categories are vague, and that ethical universalism must therefore be an empirical claim about the contingent constitution of members of Homo sapiens.

In my last post on ethical relativism, I argued that species categories are vague, and that ethical universalism must therefore be an empirical claim about the contingent constitution of members of Homo sapiens.

The notion of "objectively better" is an analytic contradiction in the same sense as is "concrete abstraction". Furthermore, preferences are relative, not absolute. "Better" and "worse" (and similar words) describe preferences, and preferences are relations between physically real state of affairs to minds, i.e.

The Celtic Chimp offers an excellent rebuttal to Thomas Metcalf's argument that objective moral facts exist. I suppose Metcalf himself cannot be blamed for throwing together an equivocation fallacy and a laundry-list of moral straw men — he's merely repeating faulty arguments well-established in the philosophical canon — but one cannot admire Metcalf's credulity or the shallowness of his analysis.

The Paradox of Motivation isn't at all a paradox under meta-ethical subjective relativism. Under MESR, all of our discussion about ethics is a discussion about our motivations; there is no need to supply motivations between the evaluation of good and the performance of actions.

The Paradox of Motivation: "I shouldn't do X, but I will do X." This is a very puzzling statement. To me, it appears as wildly absurd implausible for anyone to even say such a thing, as absurd as saying "P, but I don't believe that P." [Moore's Paradox] If you're not going to do X, what precisely do you mean by "should"?