Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 23:51:40 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    STEVE:
    The relativist/contextualist may say that he or she isn't denying
    absolute or ideal social patterns because to do so he would first have
    to postulate that there are ideal patterns to be discovered, which he
    does not choose to do. But the absolutist wouldn't say that he is
    choosing to postulate absolute right and wrong, he is only
    acknowledging it while the relativist is denying it.

    What would contextualists say? I take the MOQ to be contextualistic,
    since it takes an evolutionary view of morality with DQ in place of an
    absolute, improving static patterns but without a static ultimate goal
    of bestness. DQ is a principle of ongoing improvement. Betterness, not
    bestness. In other words, the MOQ denies that there is an ideal set of
    social patterns, while it supports the idea that any set of social
    patterns can be improved.

    >

    While absolutism requires a postulating an ideal, the MOQ still
    requires a static postulate. But the MOQ says that the evolutionary
    hierarchy of values is to be taken as provisional, so as to avoid
    denying DQ.

    I think there may be an important disagreement between the MOQ and
    formalism, since the "absolute" of the MOQ is not to be taken as
    absolute as the Christian God or the Founding Father's Natural Law but
    rather as a high Quality intellectual pattern of value. What do you
    think?

    Regards,
    Steve

    I think that what you are saying is fair assesment (except for the comment about Matt and Rorty--he's not here to defend himself cheater :-P Although it is exciting to think that maybe contextualism allows a structure that MOQers can agree on, a good middle ground (it is probably the first label I feel comfortable giving full acceptance to---finally know what to call myself hee hee).

    I wonder if this agreement will lead to some consensus in this group or if this will be ignored and the relativistic-absolutistic cat and dog fight will continue :-)

    First maybe I should ask, is there anybody that disagrees with the contextualist argument?

    Erin

     

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 05 2004 - 00:17:44 GMT