Actually, moral relativism is rejected by pretty much everyone serious about philosophy.
Please tell me you don't really consider Jonathan Dolhenty to be a spokesperson for "pretty much everyone serious about philosophy". He's a reactionary whack-job.
We can disagree on what constitues good and evil, but to claim that there is no distinction is just silly.
Moral relativism doesn't assert that there is no distinction between good and evil; it merely asserts that moral standards are not absolute. See a more sane link that discusses it.
Personally, I don't really think that moral relativism is the way to go when considering questions of ethics, it just annoys me when people misrepresent any argument that discusses value judgments as being a hallmark of some sinister "moral relativism" (usually followed by calling people "Hitler lovers" and the like).
Remember, invading Iraq was not done on the spur of the moment. It's easily forgotten now, but Saddam could have stayed in power by just letting weapons inspectors in to the country without trying to play games.
How on earth can you say this with a straight face? Hussein let the inspectors back in, and when it became obvious that they weren't going to find what the US wanted them to find, the US told them to withdraw and invaded anyway.
I'm continually astonished that people like you can continue to defend this blatantly transparent war of aggression as being somehow defensive and just.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me you don't really consider Jonathan Dolhenty to be a spokesperson for "pretty much everyone serious about philosophy". He's a reactionary whack-job.
We can disagree on what constitues good and evil, but to claim that there is no distinction is just silly.Moral relativism doesn't assert that there is no distinction between good and evil; it merely asserts that moral standards are not absolute. See a more sane link that discusses it.
Personally, I don't really think that moral relativism is the way to go when considering questions of ethics, it just annoys me when people misrepresent any argument that discusses value judgments as being a hallmark of some sinister "moral relativism" (usually followed by calling people "Hitler lovers" and the like).
How on earth can you say this with a straight face? Hussein let the inspectors back in, and when it became obvious that they weren't going to find what the US wanted them to find, the US told them to withdraw and invaded anyway.
I'm continually astonished that people like you can continue to defend this blatantly transparent war of aggression as being somehow defensive and just.