3 ms·
This analogy assumes you have a linear scale from black to white, and thus any two values can be objectively compared to each other. You have to be careful, how
by csallen 17y ago
This analogy assumes you have a linear scale from black to white, and thus any two values can be objectively compared to each other. You have to be careful, however: Many discrepancies and disagreements cannot be likened to simple shades of gray. I'll take an example from the article:
The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
Assuming they're talking about moral relativism, it can be argued this is a purely subjective matter. When it comes to morality, it's likely people will disagree on whether ActionX is a darker or lighter shade of gray than ActionY. Although his reasoning is faulty, the Sophisticate's conclusion is correct.
Instead of: "It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
It should be: "No one can definitively claim one shade of gray is darker than another. Therefore, ..."
- ekiru 17y agoI don't quite agree. While in some cases, there is certainly subjectivity in morality, almost everyone would agree that certain things are definitively a darker gray than others. Almost no one would argue that murdering random people is morally superior to nursing an injured bird back to health. It is true that some people might, but I think that the vast majority is sometimes right in judging comparisons like that.
- csallen 17y ago>> almost everyone would agree that certain things are definitively a darker gray than others Yes, but we must ask ourselves: Does widespread agreement on an opinion turn that opinion into a fact? If 100% of humanity were to suddenly believe that red is better than blue, would that make it objectively true? I think the answer is no. The difference between fact and opinion is not reliant on the number of people who believe one way or the other.
- Retric 17y agoIn this case moral relative depends on the definition of better. If you have a specific definition of better (EX: for one person, one group, society, the environment etc) you can actually come up with a relative ranking. However, it's the choice to use better in the most vague term that makes it a monochromatic argument.
- ekiru 17y ago"If 100% of humanity were to suddenly believe that red is better than blue, would that make it objectively true?" No, but it does make it subjectively true for 100% of humanity. In addition, as a sibling comment pointed out: it is possible to objectively decide which of two actions is better than another for any specific definition of better. For example, one definition of moral "betterness" is the quality of being conducive toward the survival of a given society.
- csallen 17y agoI'm suspicious of this vague terminology. Instead of saying something is "better", why not just say "it's more conducive toward the survival of a given society"?