Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Absolute moral relativism
Message-ID: <27500116@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 01:34:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.27500116
Posted: Fri Aug 30 01:34:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 13:12:33 EDT
References: <1417@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 13
Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-141700:ISM780B:27500116:000:719
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Aug 30 01:34:00 1985


This is dumb, Charley!  The fact that there are tautologies has nothing to
do with absolute *moral* [*moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral*
*moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* *moral* ]
principles.  You can't just throw in "moral" like a noise word!
Absolute Moral Relativism is *not a moral system!*  It is view *about*
moral systems.  It states that it is meaningless to talk about
moral absolutes, that there is no such thing, that morals are *defined*
relative to individuals or communities.  No one who believes in AMR
*has AMR as their moral system*.  AMR is not a method for determining
whether behavior is {prohibited, optional, required}.  Sheesh.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)