[Vision2020] What is relative moralism: Ask the Source
Nate Wilson
natewilson@moscow.com
Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:12:47 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090306090807050100050505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
When I read Mr. Fox's message (pasted below) I thought to myself, "Self,
what this man thinks he wants is honest dialog. Really honest. But what
he needs is a warm security-providing hug." Would those of you close
enough to Mr. Fox please provide him with a warm embrace? I don't think
he would ask me in if he found me on his front step with, in the words
of the poet, "arms wide open."
NDW
Art Deco wrote:
> 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 <mailto:Aldoussoma@aol.com>
> To: thansen@moscow.com <mailto:thansen@moscow.com> ;
> deco@moscow.com <mailto:deco@moscow.com> ; vision2020@moscow.com
> <mailto: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
>
--------------090306090807050100050505
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
When I read Mr. Fox's message (pasted below) I thought to myself,
"Self, what this man thinks he wants is honest dialog. Really honest.
But what he needs is a warm security-providing hug." Would those of you
close enough to Mr. Fox please provide him with a warm embrace? I don't
think he would ask me in if he found me on his front step with, in the
words of the poet, "arms wide open."<br>
<br>
NDW<br>
<br>
Art Deco wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid001f01c3e795$ec576640$daa17e40@newmicronpccom">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial Narrow" size="2">Why don't we ask the Cult
Master himself what he meant?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial Narrow" size="2">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.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial Narrow" size="2">Maybe Nate or another cultist
or maybe (Gasp!!!) the Master himself might condescend to provide an
explicit, well defined answer?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial Narrow" size="2">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.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial Narrow" size="2">Wayne Fox</font></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;">-----
Original Message ----- </div>
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>From:</b>
<a title="Aldoussoma@aol.com" href="mailto:Aldoussoma@aol.com">Aldoussoma@aol.com</a>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>To:</b>
<a title="thansen@moscow.com" href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>
; <a title="deco@moscow.com" href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a>
; <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Sent:</b>
Friday, January 30, 2004 4:46 PM</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [Vision2020] What is relative moralism</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<font face="arial,helvetica"><font size="2" ptsize="10"><br>
Tom et. al. <br>
<br>
Thanks for your reply and definition of "situational ethics." <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Thanks for your time. <br>
<br>
Ted Moffett <br>
<br>
Tom wrote: <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 which Ted "I have no last name" responded: <br>
<br>
"Please Tom, do explain what "situational ethics" is, in terms of
Wilson's <br>
beliefs, which you appeared to claim to understand." <br>
<br>
Mr. "I have no last name" - I do not claim anywhere in my 16-word post
that <br>
I understand Douglas Wilson's beliefs. Only he can explain his
beliefs. <br>
<br>
As far as "situational ethics" is concerned: <br>
<br>
situational ethics - The philosophy that there are overriding ethical <br>
maxims, but that sometimes it is necessary to set them aside in
particular <br>
situations to fulfill a higher law or principle. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430158/student_view0/glossary.html">http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430158/student_view0/glossary.html</a>
<br>
<br>
Now, if you will excuse me I have some posting to do. <br>
<br>
Tom Hansen <br>
Not On The Palouse, Not Ever <br>
<br>
A </font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------090306090807050100050505--