Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
This doesn't mean that an individual cannot be a relativist and conclude that a particular action is right or wrong. You are taking a very simplistic view of the definition. If I look at a situation, balance the relative good and evil involved in taking action one way or another, then that is also relativism.
|
Not according the definitions you have been using.
1) rel·a·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl-t-vzm)
n. Philosophy
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
2) Relativism
n : (philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved
A moral relativist can only conclude that something is right or wrong for a particular time and place. But in a different culture (different groups or different individuals) or at a different time, what is considered right or wrong can change.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
The problem with this view is twofold. First, you claim the power to determine unilaterally what is and what is not just..
|
I never claimed this. You need to start quoting me because you never seem to get it right. Let me speak for myself.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Second, you then argue that it is always acceptable to act with force to compel people to follow your view of what is just...
|
Again, I never said this. Please show me where I said this.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
If you are correct, and what you espouse is moral or just, then, since your code is universal, people will choose to conform their society to act in the way you are advocating....
|
I do not agree with that at all. Just because what is just is universal does not mean that the powers that be in a chosen society will choose to follow it.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
If "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are universal human rights (which, incidentally, I also believe they are).....
|
If you believe these rights are universal then you are not a moral relativist. According to your prior definitions what is right and wrong can change in different groups. Now you are saying these rights apply to all people at all times (in other words they don't change when you have different groups, different individuals or different siutations).
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
you are saying that these rights apply to all groups then we cannot deprive people of their liberty in the guise of bringing to them our interpretation of democracy. .....
|
I don't think we have done this. Especially in Iraq. The people under Saddam had no liberties. They have much more liberty under the occupation reqime than they ever had under Saddam. When people have no liberties or rights we can use force to bring such liberties and rights to them.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Persuasion is acceptable, economic incentives are acceptable, but orce is not always acceptable.....
|
I agree with that statement.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Why would using undemocratic methods to to bring democracy be a problem? Perhaps because it is undemocratic? universal?
.....
|
You are using faulty logic. There is no problem with using undemocrtic means to bring democracy to a people. Why would there be? If there is a dictatorship, is there a way to bring democracy using democratic means? It may have happened once or twice, but generally force is always needed to topple an undemocratic government. There is no democracy, you apply force, and you get democracy. What is wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Perhaps because if you need to use force to implement it it isn't so universal?
.....
|
Now you are getting ridiculous. Did I say everything needs to be universal? I just said that the moral code is universal. Just because I like large amount of money does not also mean I like large amounts of snakes. Using force to implement democracy is not a problem.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I am not assuimng that a universal moral code has to be pacifist. I am suggesting that it is logically impossible to say the democracy is a universally moral virtue and then assert that it is not a violation of that code to deny people the right to self-determination.
|
I don't know what you are talking about. Who is denying anyone the right to self determination. In Iraq we are trying to give the people a chance at self determination. Before we came along they did not have self determination. We used force to give it toe them - what is wrong with that?
