> > He may be engaging in ambiguation because he suspects that a nihilist
> > could assert that the ethical limits are contestable and
deconstructable
> > and that asserting the former begs the question[s] at issue. We won't
even
> > go into the issue of who gets to decide what Greater Good means.
> >
> > Ian
>
> In other words, a form of moral relativism, more or less. This would
make
> the Greater Good highly subjective, and in certain hands, explosive.
>
> DP
=================
Merely speculating, but it could be the case that he is trying to avoid a relativism that can lead to a version of eliminativism of concepts/vocabularies historically associated with ethical discourse. Meanwhile the Wachowskis play with *ontological* relativism whereby even space-time is not fundamental reality; John Wheeler and Stephen Wolfram call your offices.
Ian