sword_of_truth wrote:I haven't read all the latest responses, but I may make a couple last comments.
1) Dr. Smith can still believe that what he's going to do is objectively wrong and not care. Hence, HE is the problem, not moral relativism. Also, many religious people (9/11, never forget) think that it is objectively right to commit atrocities.
2) Many moral relativists DO care.
Care. That's the key word. It's not about logic.
It is nihilistic to assume that morals must be LOGICALLY justified. That's true nihilism. Complete inability to recognize that logic and "right" and "wrong" are in separate domains, and cannot be compared. This is precisely what Ted Bundy and dogmatic moral absolutists share, and that is why the dogmatic moral absolutist is much closer to Ted Bundy than I will ever be. The dogmatic moral absolutist dismisses his emotions (or rather confuses them with a need for logical justification) and agrees with Ted Bundy, believe that morals must be logically justified. They don't need to be. Precisely the idea that they need to be logically justified is the culprit.
Logic has its place and it can be used in moral reasoning, but it is not the source from which it springs. The moral absolutist is confused about this, which is very ironic, given that he insists on using emotional appeals to make his case. So, it is THEIR position which is self-refuting (not logically inconsistent, but self-refuting, none the less).
My "sword" of truth is due to my uncompromising rejection of falsehood, not an allusion to physical violence. Those who are struck by its "blade" cannot heal their wounds through wishful thinking because I speak the truth and one cannot get rid of the truth just because one doesn't like it.
Ciao Sword of T.
Thanks for your answer.
This I generally agree with: "Care. That's the key word. It's not about logic."
We'll talk later. Thank you for not requiring auto-biographical clarifications. You're a Lord and a Gentleman.