24 ms·
It’s just part of respecting the lifestyles and choices that our ancestors made - recognizing that there are different, equally valid systems for measuring the
by jablongo 5y ago
It’s just part of respecting the lifestyles and choices that our ancestors made - recognizing that there are different, equally valid systems for measuring the “goodness” of an individual or a social group.
- wolverine876 5y agoI understand the concept; it was expressed in the GGP as if someone else had said it and you agreed, and I didn't see where else it had been said. > there are different, equally valid systems for measuring the “goodness” of an individual or a social group It's essential to understand that people have perspectives, values, and situations outside my own or even outside my own imagination, and that their similarity to my 'system' is not a measure of their validity. That means that making judgments is very error-prone. But that's different than saying all systems are equally valid, or are good, or that goodness is subjective. Making the judgment that system A is equally good and valid as system B by virtue of their existence is far more error prone. It's like saying, when evaluating programming languages for a project, 'I'm not absolutely certain, so I'm scoring them all 100!'.
- jablongo 5y agoI guess I thought that it was implied by the OP