You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Dr Sam's clear thinking techniques #2: No, it's not all relative
Absolutely agree with your assessment of the status quo... ethical relativism and ethical nihilism are a real threat. Unsure if I would go so far as to say that this is okay when doing a merely descriptive thing... is that even possible, to be purely descriptive in that sense?
But what I don't really get from this, is what you suggest we do about this. (Yes, this is a mean question, but also an honest one that I've been trying to deal with the past months/years.) I'm still not positive as to what answer I would give to that, but was wondering if you have something to say about that...
I think it's logically possible (lol). In theory, I can observe that ethical norms differ from place to place with out making any normative judgement - though as my more sociologically-minded colleagues would argue, there is no 'view from nowhere'. There's a whole rabbit-hole we can go down by seeking to collapse the is-ought distinction too, but I think this is pretty contested across (and between) analytic philosophy and sociological approaches that seek to be more 'grounded'in people's lived experience.
No need to feel bad for asking that question of a philosopher. My personal answer hovers somewhere between Rawls-style reflective equilibrium and Russell-style emotivism, depending on how good or bad a day I'm having. I'm still working on what I think in that regard. (Of course, pretending to know THE ANSWER is vastly more profitable).
More broadly, I'm not sure that an answer is really essential to change things. I suspect that if more people thought about the question, and were better equipped to do this thinking, things would be different, and they might well be better.
Fair enough. I'm more in what you would call the sociological field--I call it the continental philosophy side of things. So yeah, I would contest you can logically say something purely descriptive--except within one's world obviously. (Which is meaningless in this discussion, actually part of the problem.)
I absolutely agree with your thoughts on change there. Thinking is essential, but a re-evaluation of what thinking is might be even more essential. My personal answer lies more in the realm of post-Lacanian matrixial thinking a la Ettinger. But I guess we shouldn't open that can of worms here ;)
And yes, I am writing a book about this atm. And no, it's not done yet ;)