[Vision2020] What is relative moralism: Ask the Source
Art Deco
deco@moscow.com
Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:02:39 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C3E752.DE0F8740
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Why don't we ask the Cult Master himself what he meant?
Although he claims to have abandoned us lost souls on Vision 2020, his son
Nate and other cultist still lurk on Vision 2020 policing our intolerance
among other things.
Maybe Nate or another cultist or maybe (Gasp!!!) the Master himself might
condescend to provide an explicit, well defined answer?
If we don't get an answer, perhaps we are to assume that as usual, the Cult
Master doesn't really know what he is talking about.
Wayne Fox
----- Original Message -----
From: Aldoussoma@aol.com
To: thansen@moscow.com ; deco@moscow.com ; vision2020@moscow.com
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] What is relative moralism
Tom et. al.
Thanks for your reply and definition of "situational ethics."
My suggested definition of moral relativism with the analogy to the theory
of relativity would not be better defined as situational ethics, according
to the definition you offer, nor do I think based on what I have gathered
from Wilson's statements that Wilson would think his view of moral
relativism is better defined according to your definition of situational
ethics.
First, you stated "I believe WHAT WILSON MEANS by 'relative moralism' is
better defined as situational ethics." So you are at least in this one case
appearing to tell us how Wilson defines an idea he has used over and over,
that of "relative moralism." If you state that what someone "means" by
moral relativism is better defined by the term situational ethics, you are
stating something about that person's beliefs.
Furthermore, the definition of "situational ethics" you offer could apply
to Wilson's stand on the death penalty or slavery, making Wilson a believer
in situational ethics, a phrase you imply better defines moral relativism,
which would contradict Wilson's statements that he is not a moral
relativist.
Also, your definition of situational ethics I do not think can be equated
with, or defined in terms of, moral relativism in the strong sense of this
phrase, because of fundamental contradictions involved. I suggested moral
relativism means there are no universal moral principles that apply to all
situations, which is clearly implied in my analogy with the theory of
relativity which states there is no one universal time applying to all
places in the universe. This is a very different definition of morality than
suggested in your definition of situational ethics, which appears to allow
for universal principles of morality, with some higher principles overruling
other ones in specific situations.
If I am correct, moral relativism is not "better defined as situational
ethics," according to my view or Wilson's, as you suggested, at least not
according to the definition you supplied.
Thanks for your time.
Ted Moffett
Tom wrote:
I stated:
"I believe that what Douglas Wilson means by 'relative moralism' is better
defined as situational ethics."
To which Ted "I have no last name" responded:
"Please Tom, do explain what "situational ethics" is, in terms of Wilson's
beliefs, which you appeared to claim to understand."
Mr. "I have no last name" - I do not claim anywhere in my 16-word post
that
I understand Douglas Wilson's beliefs. Only he can explain his beliefs.
As far as "situational ethics" is concerned:
situational ethics - The philosophy that there are overriding ethical
maxims, but that sometimes it is necessary to set them aside in particular
situations to fulfill a higher law or principle.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430158/student_view0/glossary.html
Now, if you will excuse me I have some posting to do.
Tom Hansen
Not On The Palouse, Not Ever
A
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C3E752.DE0F8740
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2>Why don't we ask the Cult =
Master himself=20
what he meant?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2>Although he claims to have =
abandoned us=20
lost souls on Vision 2020, his son Nate and other cultist still lurk on =
Vision=20
2020 policing our intolerance among other things.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2>Maybe Nate or another cultist =
or maybe=20
(Gasp!!!) the Master himself might condescend to provide an explicit, =
well=20
defined answer?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2>If we don't get an answer, =
perhaps we are=20
to assume that as usual, the Cult Master doesn't really know what =
he is=20
talking about.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2>Wayne Fox</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DAldoussoma@aol.com=20
href=3D"mailto:Aldoussoma@aol.com">Aldoussoma@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dthansen@moscow.com=20
href=3D"mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A> ; <A=20
title=3Ddeco@moscow.com =
href=3D"mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A> ; <A=20
title=3Dvision2020@moscow.com=20
href=3D"mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 30, 2004 =
4:46=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] What =
is=20
relative moralism</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2 =
PTSIZE=3D"10"><BR>Tom et.=20
al. <BR><BR>Thanks for your reply and definition of "situational =
ethics."=20
<BR><BR>My suggested definition of moral relativism with the analogy =
to the=20
theory of relativity would not be better defined as situational =
ethics,=20
according to the definition you offer, nor do I think based on what I =
have=20
gathered from Wilson's statements that Wilson would think his view of =
moral=20
relativism is better defined according to your definition of =
situational=20
ethics. <BR><BR>First, you stated "I believe WHAT WILSON MEANS by =
'relative=20
moralism' is better defined as situational ethics." So you are =
at least=20
in this one case appearing to tell us how Wilson defines an idea he =
has used=20
over and over, that of "relative moralism." If you state that =
what=20
someone "means" by moral relativism is better defined by the term =
situational=20
ethics, you are stating something about that person's beliefs.=20
<BR><BR>Furthermore, the definition of "situational ethics" you offer =
could=20
apply to Wilson's stand on the death penalty or slavery, making Wilson =
a=20
believer in situational ethics, a phrase you imply better defines =
moral=20
relativism, which would contradict Wilson's statements that he is not =
a moral=20
relativist. <BR><BR>Also, your definition of situational ethics I do =
not think=20
can be equated with, or defined in terms of, moral relativism in the =
strong=20
sense of this phrase, because of fundamental contradictions involved. =
I=20
suggested moral relativism means there are no universal moral =
principles that=20
apply to all situations, which is clearly implied in my analogy with =
the=20
theory of relativity which states there is no one universal time =
applying to=20
all places in the universe. This is a very different definition of =
morality=20
than suggested in your definition of situational ethics, which appears =
to=20
allow for universal principles of morality, with some higher =
principles=20
overruling other ones in specific situations. <BR><BR>If I am correct, =
moral=20
relativism is not "better defined as situational ethics," according to =
my view=20
or Wilson's, as you suggested, at least not according to the =
definition you=20
supplied. <BR><BR>Thanks for your time. <BR><BR>Ted Moffett =
<BR><BR>Tom wrote:=20
<BR><BR>I stated: <BR><BR>"I believe that what Douglas Wilson means by =
'relative moralism' is better <BR>defined as situational ethics." =
<BR><BR>To=20
which Ted "I have no last name" responded: <BR><BR>"Please Tom, do =
explain=20
what "situational ethics" is, in terms of Wilson's <BR>beliefs, which =
you=20
appeared to claim to understand." <BR><BR>Mr. "I have no last name" - =
I do not=20
claim anywhere in my 16-word post that <BR>I understand Douglas =
Wilson's=20
beliefs. Only he can explain his beliefs. <BR><BR>As far as =
"situational=20
ethics" is concerned: <BR><BR>situational ethics - The philosophy that =
there=20
are overriding ethical <BR>maxims, but that sometimes it is necessary =
to set=20
them aside in particular <BR>situations to fulfill a higher law or =
principle.=20
=
<BR>http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430158/student_view0/glossa=
ry.html=20
<BR><BR>Now, if you will excuse me I have some posting to do. =
<BR><BR>Tom=20
Hansen <BR>Not On The Palouse, Not Ever <BR><BR>A=20
</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C3E752.DE0F8740--