Posted on 02/09/2012 9:52:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I am just presenting Santorum's statist philosophy. I am not advocating for anarchy. Those are not the only two options.
Santorum's philosophy as he presented it to NPR:
They may very well both be wrong, but they are different.
Moral relativism is the belief that different groups of people can be required to live according to different moral codes, e.g. OK for some African tribes to be cannibals, but not civilized Westerners.
Moral pluralism is the belief that there may very well be one moral code that applies to everyone, but since no one has been able to convince everyone else of a particular set of moral beliefs then it is best to allow each person to live according to his own moral code within reasonable limits.
The U.S. is very much a morally pluralistic culture, and has been since its founding, e.g. there were various protestant and catholic colonies that disagreed vehemently amongst themselves on various moral issues.
Cultures can become too pluralistic in that they can allow individuals to believe and act in ways that are a direct harm to others, for example allowing the abortion of innocent human life. This is where the U.S. is right now unfortunately.
Moral pluralism in and of itself is not a bad thing, especially since we are all imperfect and do not have access to the complete truth about all things, and certainly do not have the capability of fully comprehending all of the implications of what truths we do know. However, the current form of pluralism we live under has been stretched so thin that we are now in self-destruct mode.
Like I said, new definition same old, same old.
Moral relativity is the concept that one set of moral values is as good as any other, here, there, anywhere. The term has been used for years to justify restorative justice in the court system. You know, “It’s not their fault that they grow up to be gang bangers, drug dealers and murderers, because their ancestors were so oppressed by the Western White Capitalist MEN.” “It’s their culture.”
I didn't say what you said. I directly contradicted it.
It doesn't help the conservative cause to be uninformed with regard to philosophy.
It doesn’t help the Libertarian cause to adopt Noam Chomsky-like definitions.
I’d like to add a new post modern definition, language relativity - the redefinition of words and terms to fit a specific agenda.
If you don't like the definitions at the links, then you should stop using your computer. You should see the reams and reams of intricate definitions that were required to design, build, and deploy the computers and networks required for you to access Free Republic! Should we expect philosophy, which hopes to explain the subtleties of human behavior, to be simpler in its definitions?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not some libertarian or leftist site. There are numerous articles written by Christian philosophers. It represents the current state of the art in philosophy.
BTW, since it is an American-based site, if anything it leans toward the analytical philosophers who are adamantly opposed to all things "post-modern" such as the deconstructivism of Foucault and Derrida. It is because they are so concerned about explaining and understanding concepts in such detail that the definitions are as fleshed out as they are.
If you are against relativism then you are intelligent and sane.
If you are against pluralism then you are opposed to the American experiment expressed in the Declaration of Independence and our beloved Constitution.
No, pluralism as you define it is value neutral, just like relativism. It is dangerous and insidious because it can be used to over turn our legal system, which is not value neutral.
Our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian law and Sharia Law is in no way equal. To consider any other culture or religion as equal to US culture or the Judeo-Christian value system is insidious and dangerous.
So do you want our laws based on Jewish law or Christian law?
They are not identical.
___________________
Thank you for your explanation of that term. I would have to say that I am always skeptical of moral concepts that seem rather vague, imprecise and/or subject to various interpretations.
Indeed the whole concept seems to be negated by the final “within reasonable limits” clause. That would seem to be a term of art that politicians, lawyers and Marxists (to name a few) could use to justify almost anything!
To agree to do whatever is “reasonable;” w/o a predefined understanding of the scope of that term seems subject to a myriad of interpretations. One thing I learned from the Clinton administration was that words and terms such as, “reasonable” have absolutely no definable meaning or limits when used by the Far Left.
Take care,
-Geoff
Our legal system is only based on the general moral principles of the Judeo/Christian religion, not on the religion itself. It’s based more on the Judeo/Christian culture than on the religious law.
For instance, our legal system does not condemn anyone for taking the name of GOD in vane, or coveting your neighbor’s wife.
On the other hand, Sharia law is a direct dictat of Islam. A man can beat his wife, cheat his neighbor if the neighbor is not a Muslim and do all sorts of other actions that are considered a crime under our legal system. Both your plural relativism and moral relativism would say this too, is a cultural issue and should be considered equal to our Judeo-Christian based legal system.
It’s not equal under the constitution.
Still, it is kind of interesting that, although Sharia Law is very different in content from Judeo-Christian based law, the way it is currently implemented and enforced is quite similar to the way Jewish and Christian law was enforced in the distant past.
This article was written by a covert Romney-bot.
No it’s not interesting at all. The Islamic culture is stuck in the 6th century. That is the reason that there can be no equality between the cultures, no relativity, either.
Hate to break it to you Newt supporters... Newt is done, finished as a Presidential candidate,,, his biggest donor Sheldon Adelson has pulled the plug on Newt’s Presidential campaign, I guess Sheldon Adelson has seen the writing on the wall...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.