*
+
] SamHarris.org
Reader Forum Index / #4 /
] Specific
Comments on The End of Faith / 4 April 07 /
] Thread
title > relativism, realism, and pragmatism /
] Post
subject > Re: moral relativism and stuff /
.
> On
24March07 CanZen wrote: [snip]
.
tx
say: Hey, cz, good post. I tend to agree with all that you say
...
with one notable exception:
.
> ...
if everyone gets to decide by his/her own tastes [snip]
.
Well
that's just what makes ethics and morality and spirituality so darn
interesting:
everyone DOES get to decide by his/her own tastes, understanding,
and
reason. This is why there's just no escaping the fact that every single
mature
individual
must take responsibility for his/her own actions. THAT is the heart and
soul
of all ethics and morality and spirituality. And also the one thing that
moral
relativism
can never do away with.
.
As
for myself, I'm part naive-realist (of the common-sense faction), part
existentialist,
part textual-critic, and (large) part historian. Now that's a lot
of
hats to wear all at the same time, but it has one great advantage: Whereas
the
vast
majority of philosophers (as also scientists) are 'experts', which is to
say
'specialists'
in just one particular area or field, my multi-tasking approach to
philosophy
allows me to be something of an "expert generalist". If you don't know
quite
what to make of that, think of it as the ability to see the big-picture
where
others
get entangled by the details. I'm a high-powered telescope surrounded by
thousands
of puny little microscopes!
.
:D
.
As
for the idea that pacifism is flagrantly immoral, I don't know. I understand
and
accept
Sam's thinking as to why this so, and therefore agree that absolute pacifism
is
indeed immoral, or rather, can be immoral; but I see nothing wrong with
pacifism
as
a general social norm for the majority of citizens living within a civilized
society
and culture. After all, we have police-forces and armies to do the "dirty
work"
of subduing criminals and invaders for us. And don't forget that social-
diversification
also allows for the presence and activities of philosophers.
.
- the almost diversified one - textman ;;>
x
+
] SamHarris.org
Reader Forum Index -> #5 /
] Specific
Comments on The End of Faith / 4 April 07 /
] Thread
title > relativism, realism, and pragmatism /
] Post
subject > Re: the morality of extreme wealth /
.
> On
4Apr SaulOhio wrote: [snip] One example I have heard of is that of some-
> one
who is shipwrecked and washes ashore on a privately owned island. To an
> Objectivist,
property rights are absolute, but they do not apply to this case.
> It
would be absurd to expect them to try to swim to the mainland just to avoid
> trespassing
on someone else's island. Fortunately, of course, nobody, no
> matter
how rich and eccentric, would expect them to. The right to life, in this
> emergency
situation, trumps private property
.
tx
say: Interesting argument, SaulOhio. I like your notion of 'absolute within
context'.
Nor am I opposed to the institution of private property, as such. How-
ever,
this thing about privately owned islands bothers me. Frankly, I think that
the
whole idea of people owing large tracks of land is basically and fundamentally
immoral.
The Earth can't be bought by the rich. It belongs to the race as a whole,
as
a trust to keep and honor so that future generations may have the possibility
of
a good and healthy life in a clean and healthy environment.
.
Sadly,
the rich do not care about either humanity or the future. Protecting their
"rights"
therefore is not only also immoral, but ultimately self-destructive, not
to
mention suicidal (ie. in the long run).
.
Reason
is indeed a moral absolute, but so is the welfare of the human race, AND
the
planet itself, AND the future of both! And all of these things "trumps"
the
needs
and desires of the rich. I guess what I'm trying to say is just that there
are
no rights without responsibilities.
x
+
] wwwSite
> SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index -> #6 /
] Forum
> Specific Comments on The End of Faith /
] Thread
title > relativism, realism, and pragmatism /
] Post
subject > Re: High-powered telescope / 5 April 07 /
.
>>
On 4Apr Joad wrote: [snip] You are quite correct to
>>
address the paradox of absolutes in conflict
.
tx
say: "the paradox of absolutes in conflict"? ... Could you maybe expand
on
that a bit? ... the paradox of 'absolutes-in-context' in conflict within
a larger
conflict of ideologies and interpretive schemes ?!?! ... Yowsers!
.
> On
4Apr CanZen wrote: [snip] On another subject textman, you are certainly
> going
against the grain with your emphasis on being an "expert generalist" -
> what
you are trying to achieve is wisdom,
.
tx
say: An astute observation, CanZen. That is exactly right. Wisdom is indeed
a
large
part of what 'real-philosophy' is all about; hence the name of the goddess:
Lady
Sophia. Now philosophy is not the abject slave of the goddess (that is
to
say:
wisdom is not the sum total of the philosophical enterprise), for it both
does
and
does not serve Her interests. In fact you might even say that Philosophy
has
four
more-or-less equal partners: Religion, Science, History, and Wisdom/Sophia.
Accordingly,
a very tight relationship with all these aspects of Mind-in-Action
could
only be to everyone's mutual benefit. Alas, this is not possible under
the
current
scheme of excessive specialization. Wisdom can't even be easily found
under
such appalling conditions, let alone analyzed and quantified. This is,
and
indeed
must be, a major problem all around; and especially so for History. But
Science
and Philosophy are generally not interested in History, or its problems
and
"issues". Yet only philosophy is situated so as to see the problem, and
thus
raise
the alarm.
.
> and
the way academia is structured today you are supposed to be either a
> specialist
or you are nothing.
.
Right.
They suppose that they've got every little thing covered. But they suppose
falsely.
Where is the specialist whose expertise is to investigate the question
that
asks
whether the current interpretive and scientific paradigm does in fact cover
every-little-thing,
or not? And if they are overlooking *that* key question (or
worse,
deliberately ignoring it), what else, one wonders, are they ignoring and
/
or
overlooking?
.
> What
an excellent place from where to start your high-powered telescopic
> synopsis:
part naive-realist, part existentialist, part textual critic, and part
> historian!
I think many of us on this forum share exactly that same sort of
> foundational
perspective and you will find much agreement among most of us.
.
Hahaha,
thx for the kind thoughts, CanZen. On the other hand, I'm sure I'll be
able
to insult the atheist and skeptic types sooner or later. And I dare say
that
I can
even come up with something that almost anybody can disagree with. :D
.
- the almost disagreeable one - textman ;>
.
P.S.
Ah, yes. If only, if only! ... If only there was *some* rational and objective
means
by which to get a handle on these strange and slippery critters called
'wisdom'
and 'spirit'. Then *maybe* something could be done ...
'Impossible',
you say? 'Never happen', you say? ... Oh ye of little faith!
Never
say: "It will never happen!" ... It might happen sooner than you think.
The
question is not 'When will it happen?', the question is: Will you be ready
for
it? Will you be strong enough to take those all-important first few steps?
If
you are ...
x
textman
*