Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ratex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!ratex!mck
From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Re: Relativism and Libertarianism
Message-ID: <778@ratex.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 19:07:09 EST
Article-I.D.: ratex.778
Posted: Tue Jan 22 19:07:09 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 09:12:35 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Terran Mystery Poodles
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.politics:7081 net.philosophy:1375


>Since trying to logically derive ethics from objective truths has been
>proven useless (see Hume),

Oh no no no, Wayne; neither Hume nor anyone else has proven such attempts
useless.  Hume indicated the magnitude of the problem.

>                           why not approach the problem from the
>standpoint of which ethical views are the least "absolute" in nature.

You can ask 'why not?', and Torek et alii can ask 'why?'; 'why not?' is a
motivator only for those seeking an existential experience.

>Probably universal toleration and libertarianism are the most
>compatible with relativism,

I fail to see how Libertarianism is more compatible with Relativism than
are, say, Individualist Anarchism or Anarcho-Socialism.

>                                  Personally, I don't care if I'm not
>absolutely consistent,

Creeping Nihilism, Wayne, creeping Nihilism.

                                        Back to you,
                                        Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan