RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 19, 2015 at 1:15 pm
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2015 at 1:17 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 19, 2015 at 12:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're expressing moral subjectivism when you tell me to stop looking at it through my 21st century white american male eyes....and that it may have been okay for them, then, to tell the story in that way...ostensibly as opposed to how it's not okay now.
Yes, but listen carefully. I never said nothing is subjective. I said morality is not subjective. Since there is nothing immoral with the way people spoke, wrote, and told stories back then, you can't claim that I am contradicting myself. It's just a matter of understanding it.
(June 19, 2015 at 12:36 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:(June 19, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I would be contradicting myself only if I said it was morally wrong to write and story tell in the way people did thousands of years ago. Which I never said.
You can't be both a moral objectivist and then claim that things were different in another time, that another culture's mores don't apply now. That's what Rhythm is saying.
Sure I can. Many things change over time. I do not believe morality is one of them. Nothing contradictory about that.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
