<< >People think that, but they are wrong. I don't see that the existence of
current moral difference makes moral relativism any more plausible than the
existence of past moral differences. Nor does the fact that some people are
impervious to reason make their views justified by any lights.
> Ah, the philosophers resort to the first god substitute [reason] and then a
bogus metaphor to appeal to justification [on that I'll take a touch of
Sartre].
Ah, the world-weary Rortyean handwave, compounded with the shrug, the philosophical equivalent of Reagan's "There he goes again!" And quite as argumentatively empty. Reason, that is very bad, as we all know, there is no such things, just criss-crossing and incommensurable patterns of belief, inference, and valuation, deeply historically located. we are stuck inouts, but that's OK as long as we take the properly ironic attitude towards it.
I was a student of Rorty's, I know all the moves.
> Where did I use or insinuate the use of moral relativism?
The next Rortyean step. Relativism, who me? I'm an ironist, nota relativist. Which leads to:
> Or am I
merely eliciting the exposure of a cognitive habit inculcated in you [and
others] by 2500 years of philosophy that seems to be obsolete.
That is, you have been brainwashed by a bad education in a wornout discipline. We ironsits see taht even though we assert the same propositions as relativists, it's so old hat to call the result relativism. It's just the postmodern situation, a fact, not a doctrine, and looking at it asa thesis that might be sopported or attacked with argument just shows how benighted you are.
> Moral
differences are a fact
As I was saying.
> and the additional fact of the lack of resolution on
the validity or lack thereof regarding moral realism should lead us to
thinking of that whole discourse as akin to [using my timeworn analogy]
phlogiston and the ether. Incommensurability and intractability are just
that and the quest for justification independent of "time" and history just
creates aporias upon meta-aporias.
Yup, no justification for me. Never touch the stuff. Don't ask why, it's just too boring.
>
> My "point"
Ironists never have points, only "points," put in scare quotes so no one will think they are actually arguing for anything.
> was merely that
people also disagree regarding the attempt to rigidly designate the
moral/immoral boundary and whether or not it should always be paired with
explanation/justification strategies based on truth, which is the ultimate
contested notion.
Gaak, truth, yuk, contested, bad stuff. keep away. Let's settle for warranted assertability,w hich means, consensul in the language game we play hereabouts.
> It reminds me of the tiring argument over abortion I have
every few years with my dearest friend over whether disagreeing that
abortion should be framed as a moral issue was itself immoral.
Oh, so tiring. Soooo tiring. Tiresome, too, I would think. Inconclusive. Pointless. Personally I _never_ do phiulosophy, it's so passe, all that trutha nd justifiucation soft shoe.
> Mere opinion [as in mine]: relativism/absolutism in ethical discourse is as
obsolete as it is in metaphysics.
Well, you would.
--jks