3 ms·

That comment blatantly implies that secularl and liberal ideas are incompatible with valuing tradition, morality and spirituality. It makes unquantified assumpt

That comment blatantly implies that secularl and liberal ideas are incompatible with valuing tradition, morality and spirituality. It makes unquantified assumptions about how the person was raised and their life experiences. There's nothing charitable about it at all.

idle_zealot 4y ago
> blatantly implies that secularl and liberal ideas are incompatible with valuing tradition, morality and spirituality Yes, that is what I was implying. Now I will state it more explicitly: those values are each at odds with either secularism or liberalism. > unquantified assumptions about how the person was raised I'm not entirely sure what an unquantified assumption is, but I clearly qualified that I was making a guess about the person. Making and confirming guesses about others based on what you know about them so far is normal behavior. I am by no means certain about the accuracy of my guess, but presented it as a starting point for further discussion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xpe 4y ago
  > Now I will state it more explicitly: those values are each at odds with either secularism or liberalism. If philosophies claiming absolute truth are imposed on a pluralist society there will be conflict. In this sense, I agree they are incompatible in some cases. However, they are not necessarily incompatible. There are religious leaders who recommend that followers live by a religious philosophy without imposing it via strict laws. A philosopher named Robert Kane describes his views which distinguish between public morality and private morality. Pluralism as a public morality is compatible to a very large extent with most private moralities. You only get incompatibilities when the private morality tramples on the rights of other private moralities. This is a useful distinction.

3 ms·

That comment blatantly implies that secularl and liberal ideas are incompatible with valuing tradition, morality and spirituality. It makes unquantified assumpt

by zdragnar 4y ago

idle_zealot 4y ago
> blatantly implies that secularl and liberal ideas are incompatible with valuing tradition, morality and spirituality Yes, that is what I was implying. Now I will state it more explicitly: those values are each at odds with either secularism or liberalism. > unquantified assumptions about how the person was raised I'm not entirely sure what an unquantified assumption is, but I clearly qualified that I was making a guess about the person. Making and confirming guesses about others based on what you know about them so far is normal behavior. I am by no means certain about the accuracy of my guess, but presented it as a starting point for further discussion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xpe 4y ago
  > Now I will state it more explicitly: those values are each at odds with either secularism or liberalism. If philosophies claiming absolute truth are imposed on a pluralist society there will be conflict. In this sense, I agree they are incompatible in some cases. However, they are not necessarily incompatible. There are religious leaders who recommend that followers live by a religious philosophy without imposing it via strict laws. A philosopher named Robert Kane describes his views which distinguish between public morality and private morality. Pluralism as a public morality is compatible to a very large extent with most private moralities. You only get incompatibilities when the private morality tramples on the rights of other private moralities. This is a useful distinction.