MrFrankZito

To read this provocative commentary, click Here!.

Since I did not originally compose this commentary, I will refrain from simply cutting-and-pasting the text, as I don't want to infringe on the author's intellectual property.

Personally, I agree with the commentary's central thesis, though I disagree with some of the finer points here and there.

What say you?

PoodleLovinPessimist

While I happen to approve of the same things as the author, his argument that moral relativism entails social small-ell libertarianism is fallacious. Moral relativism doesn't actually entail any moral belief; it doesn't even entail moral nihilism. Fascism and Soviet Communism are both as compatible with moral relativism as social libertarianism.

MrFrankZito

Where does the author say that libertarianism and moral relativism must go together? The author happens to be atheist, libertarian, skeptic and moral relativist. However, I don't think the author ever explicitly says that all those philosophical notions must be taken together as a complete package. Though, certainly, that particular package fits together very well. Don't you think?

TySixtus

Yeah, that guy got carried away with moral relativism.

For example, he brings up the "life Value" argument.

He is absolutely right about one thing: we have a vested interest in being alive. Ergo, the value of human life is apparent to most humans. While it may not be objective, I find it to be a correct judgement on our behalf.

Just because an argument is subjective doesn't mean it's wrong.

He can claim all day long that it's only our lack of objectivity that allows us to believe our lives have more value than, say, a dog. And that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that society (and human beings in general) value the life of a human over that of a dog. It's a consensus, for the most part. Which is objective enough.

As far as his take on homosexuality goes, he made the critical mistake of going the moral relativist route. He threw in the disclaimer "so long as their actions do not impede others from doing absolutely whatever they want."

Well shit! Say two people's actions are impedeing each other? Taking an objective stance on one of the two issues will violate his moral relativist leanings. After all, who are we to decide what is right or wrong? Are they both wrong? What if the moral thing to do is let someone interfere with someone else's rights?

I'm tempted to rename moral relativism "Moral Solipsism". Moral judgements are like any other judgement human beings make. They are subject to being wrong, sure. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Ty

PoodleLovinPessimist

Maybe I'm right; maybe I'm wrong; maybe there's no such thing as objectively acceptable/unacceptable. Maybe, as I suspect, it's all a matter of personal opinion. If that's the case. I move to let consenting adults (my opinion rears its head to make a restriction) engage in whatever relationships they please, be they heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, incestual, polygamous or any other conceivable combination. [emphasis added]

This looks like an argument to me.

Craft your own morality. Give others the same privilege. That's the only ground rule. Laws should be devised in that vein: Let people do absolutely whatever they want, so long as their actions do not impede others from doing absolutely whatever they want.

Introducing a rule, any rule, at the meta-ethical level contradicts moral relativism. According to moral relativism, at best one can say is that, "I approve of letting people do whatever they want, etc." or "Thus and such society lets people etc." Moral relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive; under moral relativism, every ethical and meta-ethical rule has either an implicit or explicit qualifier stating to whom that rule is relative to, and in an essay on moral relativism it is confusing to make the qualifier implicit.

I read him as actually arguing for social libertarianism on the basis of moral relativism. Like I said, I happen to approve of social libertarianism, and I happen to agree with moral relativism, but I myself do not draw a logical connection between the two.

A lot of packages fit together well.

Bomb#20

Craft your own morality. Give others the same privilege. That's the only ground rule. Laws should be devised in that vein
"Morality,"... should be expunged from the consciousness of the species.
nobody "should" do anything.

- The Libertarian Defender

What's to disagree with? It all seems so clearly correct...

My client never took the car,
it was already smashed when he drove it away,
and it was not smashed when he returned it.

- The Public Defender

Jinksy

Well that claim defeats itself in pretty short order...

MrFrankZito

That seems like a semantic objection, rather than a philosophical objection. But maybe that's just me.

Mountain Man

I never agree with liberataians. It just encourages them.

Peter Watts

Homophobia is such a misleading word.

Most people aren't the least bit frightened of homosexuals.