3 ms·
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 exam
by 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.