Friday, October 07, 2005


If you have any clue as to what moral relativism is, leave a comment.

I have almost certainly decided the topic for my philosophy paper is how Aristotle's statement that there is a true, objective, necessary good, which is determined by the morally just man, based on his argument about man having a proper end to relate to his rational function. Basically, there is a true, universal good for all men flowing from man's nature. Wikipedia is no help at all. They give descriptions of ethics, meta-ethics, value ethics, relativistic Meta-value dollar menu ethics. But not a clear concise declaration of what moral relativism is.

The pope harps on the culture of relativism. What does that mean? Relativism is the plight on society which causes people to ignore what the church teaches and do their own thing. That's the sense I get. If only everyone would listen to the church, then I wouldn't have to complain about relativism! Are you listening to me, all you relativists? says the pope. I'm going to write an encyclical or something and that's show them. I think I might have time this afternoon between my meeting with the Interfaith Understanding Coalition and the Ecumenical Ice Cream Social.

Normally, one is labeled "relativist" for saying that there is no objective standard of morality: I think it's ok to shoot babies.
Or is it something more subtle: I think it's ok to shoot babies. Who are you to tell me what to do? I am my own little God, and therefore I can make up the rules. And I declare that it is the perfection of man to watch Sex and the City reruns in my pajamas. And shooting babies.

The outline is due on the 17th and I still don't have a clue how I will pull this thing off. It seems more like a senior thesis: Aristotle's Function Argument and the Kantian view of the Good in Light of Developments in Airplane Manufacturing during the Summer of 1978.

No comments: