3 ms·
> Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from? That's a large debate on its own (read up on John S
by mpyne 15y ago
> Why? It's not by the definition of wrong of those Iranians. Where does that objective standard come from?
That's a large debate on its own (read up on John Stuart Mill for instance) but essentially you're arguing for a philosophy called relativism, the end of which is that there's nothing objectively right...
On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too.
- icebraining 15y agoWhile I'd say I am in fact a moral relativist, I'd also say I'm not exactly arguing for it. As far as I can see, relativism is the agnosticism of morality - in the lack of evidence for an objective moral code, the only reasonable, logical position is relativism. On the other hand, I'm rather ignorant about the subject, so my opinion isn't to be taken very seriously. On the other hand that would mean that the U.S. is justified in however they treat Iran, since they're nothing objectively wrong either. Sometimes you really can't have your cake and eat too. Sure, but I can still dislike it, which in practice means the same (essentially nothing, since my influence is zero ;)