Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Absolute moral relativism
Message-ID: <1654@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 02:30:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1654
Posted: Fri Sep  6 02:30:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 04:13:01 EDT
References: <1358@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1631@watdcsu.UUCP> <1417@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: none.  Entropy: maximum possible.
Lines: 37
Summary: 

[Aaaaaaccccck!  There's been so much posted about morality, I've fallen
hopelessly behind.]

>> me
> Charley Wingate

In article <1417@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>>                                                   You might try arguing
>>with the version of absolute moral relativism that I prefer:
>
>>ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that the truth or falsehood of a
>>	statement of the morality or immorality of some action cannot
>>	be demonstrated objectively.
>
>All right.  I think it is reasonable to accept the principle that a moral
>system should be consistent with respect to its own meta-principles, and
>also with respect to whatever other principles we accept. ...
>                                               ...If we accept this
>principle as being true, than we can derive logically from it that any moral
>principle derived from the claim that "some principle is objectively evident"
>is in fact incorrect.

Not so.  Deriving a statement logically from a false premise doesn't
show the statement to be false.  If you show the proof of a statement
to be incorrect, the statement itself could be either true or false.

>                       This implies either that absolute moral relativism is
>incorrect, or that it cannot be proven objectively.

I don't think you can show that absolute moral relativism (as defined
above) is incorrect, but you might be able to show that it's unprovable.

-- 
David Canzi

This has been a test of the emergency broadcasting system.  It was only a test.
Repeat: only a test.  If this had been a real emergency, you would be dead.