3 ms·

It doesn't sound like a conflation to me. I think the point of the person you were replying to is that, while they are separate things, individualism isn't inte

by chc 10y ago

It doesn't sound like a conflation to me. I think the point of the person you were replying to is that, while they are separate things, individualism isn't internally consistent without moral relativism.

jerf 10y ago
I think you're making the same conflation without realizing it. No, they aren't the same. There is no inconsistency in thinking non-relatively that people should generally be able to stand on their own as individuals or that the individual is generally more important than the collective or any other interpretation of the term I can think of, nor any special inconsistency in thinking that morals are relative but that individualism has no value or may even be harmful, beyond the general logical incoherence of moral relativism. They're orthogonal concerns.
- chc 10y ago
  No, they aren't the same. I explicitly said that in the comment you're replying to. Two ideas can be harmonious or conflicting without being the same. For example, the ideas "water is red" and "the color red exists" are not the same at all — most people believe the second one is true but not the first, and you could believe both are false without any contradiction. However, believing in the first one makes it impossible to self-consistently believe in the second. Belief systems are more complex and subtle than simple claims like that, but they can still harmonize or conflict. I think the line of thought here is something like this: Moral relativism is self-determination in the moral realm. Self-determination is a cornerstone of individualism. Therefore, individualism without moral relativism is somewhat compromised.
  - jerf 10y ago
    "Moral relativism is self-determination in the moral realm. Self-determination is a cornerstone of individualism. Therefore, individualism without moral relativism is somewhat compromised." I'd call that equivocation on the word "self-determination". I'm not even sure the first sentence is correct in any sense. At best engaging in self-determination is a permitted result of moral relativism, but it is not the conceptual essence of it, nor even particularly necessary to be morally relativistic. Declaring all morals are relative, then importing someone else's wholesale is not something that contradicts moral relativism.

by chc 10y ago

jerf 10y ago

I think you're making the same conflation without realizing it. No, they aren't the same. There is no inconsistency in thinking non-relatively that people should generally be able to stand on their own as individuals or that the individual is generally more important than the collective or any other interpretation of the term I can think of, nor any special inconsistency in thinking that morals are relative but that individualism has no value or may even be harmful, beyond the general logical incoherence of moral relativism. They're orthogonal concerns.

chc 10y ago
No, they aren't the same. I explicitly said that in the comment you're replying to. Two ideas can be harmonious or conflicting without being the same. For example, the ideas "water is red" and "the color red exists" are not the same at all — most people believe the second one is true but not the first, and you could believe both are false without any contradiction. However, believing in the first one makes it impossible to self-consistently believe in the second. Belief systems are more complex and subtle than simple claims like that, but they can still harmonize or conflict. I think the line of thought here is something like this: Moral relativism is self-determination in the moral realm. Self-determination is a cornerstone of individualism. Therefore, individualism without moral relativism is somewhat compromised.
- jerf 10y ago
  "Moral relativism is self-determination in the moral realm. Self-determination is a cornerstone of individualism. Therefore, individualism without moral relativism is somewhat compromised." I'd call that equivocation on the word "self-determination". I'm not even sure the first sentence is correct in any sense. At best engaging in self-determination is a permitted result of moral relativism, but it is not the conceptual essence of it, nor even particularly necessary to be morally relativistic. Declaring all morals are relative, then importing someone else's wholesale is not something that contradicts moral relativism.