Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definitions of Morality
Message-ID: <1700@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 23:27:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1700
Posted: Mon Aug 26 23:27:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 07:26:17 EDT
References: <374@aero.ARPA> <1358@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 59

> Here's a curious fact which I came upon yesterday.  But first let we define
> a couple of terms:
> 
> MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true,
>                  regardless of which moral system you subscribe to.
> 
> (not to be confused with absolute morals)
> 
> ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that
>                 any particular moral system is correct.
> 
> (as compared to ordinary moral relativism, which holds that it is impossible
>  within any particular moral system to judge that another is incorrect)
> 
> The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, because
> it states a moral absolute.
> 
> Some moral systems do in fact state that it can be determined that they are
> correct and others are wrong.  Some simply state that it can be determined
> that certain morals are always incorrect.  According to absolute moral
> relativism, however, such conclusions are incorrect.  This means that this
> principle that you cannot determine incorrectness is a moral absolute, and
> that one can therefore determine outside of any particular system that
> a particular system is incorrect, contrary to absolute moral relativism.
> Hence, absolute moral relativism cannot be correct.  (Incidentally, this
> would seem to imply that there are moral absolutes, since the denial of
> this leads to the same contradiction.)
> 
>   Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

Being a relativist, I must admit that it may be practical in some situations
to regard some moral values as absolute.  Thus the statement that
it is impossible to determine that any particular moral system is correct
may be incorrect.   As all other moral statements.

Is there a self-contradiction?  Not necessary.  One solution is to have
introduce time variable into the logic.  Then we would admit statements
which are true at a given time.  Imagine a formula which does not involve
time variable, but contains several free variables (denoting people, 
material goods, places etc.).  Now we may have a situation that at certain
time moment the formula is true under all interpretations (i.e. for all
people, material goods, places etc. existing at this moment, with the 
truth values of relationships being evaluated at this moment), but at
another moment of time the formula is not valid under certain interpretation.
Thus universally valid could have two meanings: universally valid at
a given time, or universally valid for all times.
Again, assuming ignorance on the states of the world at certain time points
(distant future or distant past, for example) it may well be impossible
to determine universality over time of any statement which is not an
utter tautology, like
   "if A is better that B then it is better to do A then to do B".

SHOOT!!  I, a relativist, revealed myself an universally valid principle!
More seriously Charlie, before accusing others of contradicting themselves, 
refresh your knowledge on logic.

Piotr Berman

"Have you found a new universal principle today?"