tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post6922624322533203336..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Fishy RelativismRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-89555354357381755372011-08-15T23:54:50.302-04:002011-08-15T23:54:50.302-04:00We should also remember the flip side of this coin...We should also remember the flip side of this coin, that relativism may lead in the opposite direction from nihilism. Everyone can be equally right, and individuals (instead of believing that absolutes cannot be known) may accept the existence of absolutes which diverse viewpoints each catch a small glimpse of. Absolutes should not necessarily be thrown out ex post our inability to discern them above the fray of culture, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-80224522094735698762011-08-03T12:25:54.015-04:002011-08-03T12:25:54.015-04:00derblindehund,
But then Fish goes on to say that ...derblindehund,<br /><br />But then Fish goes on to say that those who accept the "no device" position reject nothing but "the possibility of securing universal assent." So if he rejects the idea that there is a possible device through which we come to know moral facts, and he says he rejects nothing but the possibility of securing universal assent, it seems to imply that universal assent is the device through which moral absolutes could come to be known.<br /><br />I think you're probably right in that he didn't mean to imply that; it would require a lot more (most likely convoluted) argumentation to explain how the factual status of some moral statement rests on agreement.J.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10182878747724860064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-55643538898187968562011-08-03T03:12:18.891-04:002011-08-03T03:12:18.891-04:00I don't think that Fish "believes that mo...I don't think that Fish "believes that moral absolutes are facts that necessarily cause universal agreement". If I understand him correctly he says that there are absolute moral facts, but we can't know which facts exactly are moral absolutes. ("there is no device, mechanical test, algorithm or knock-down argument for determining which candidates are the true ones.") But I wonder how Fish knows that there are absolute moral facts if they are unknowable.<br /><br />dbHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-67683014093598166382011-08-02T19:40:20.421-04:002011-08-02T19:40:20.421-04:00Fish seems to be implying that the factual status ...Fish seems to be implying that the factual status of a moral statement depends on universal agreement, am I misreading him? He seems to think because we don't, and cannot, all freely assent to some set of moral facts that we cannot make any epistemic ground.<br /><br />He says he is part of the group that "believes there are moral absolutes", but if he believes that moral absolutes are facts that necessarily cause universal agreement, he clearly rejects their existence. This of course is no argument against moral absolutes as you pointed out, but it is a weird thing to imply.J.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10182878747724860064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-24742560899708654242011-08-02T15:21:52.408-04:002011-08-02T15:21:52.408-04:00I should add: The general thrust of Fish's art...I should add: The general thrust of Fish's article seems to be that it "wouldn't matter" (practically speaking) if relativists were committed to nihilism, because we can always behave in a way that's inconsistent with our avowed theoretical commitments. Which may be true enough, but hardly seems germane to Boghossian's argument...Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.com