A person can decide that good is really bad and that bad is really good - all that is then required is to swap the terms around so that henceforth good becomes the word that describes what they now call bad, and vice versa.
But if a relativist protests that both things are in reality neutral, they rob themselves of the faculty of discernment that allows us to think, to create and even to live. Without discernment, how could we distinguish nutritious berries from poisonous ones?
I'm sure some relativists might argue that physical facts and moral issues are not the same, but that being the case, without discernment, how do they distinguish the two?
Furthermore, if they argue that the moral dimension does not really exist and that morality is merely a subjective conjuration of the mind and that the mind is purely physical (biological, bioelectrical and biochemical) then isn't that an inadvertent recognition of the tangible and effective reality of morality?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment