3 ms·
> That is OK of course, but it is a minority view. Probably in the general population but I would have though it a fairly typical attitude of those who ponder
by dejb 17y ago
> That is OK of course, but it is a minority view.
Probably in the general population but I would have though it a fairly typical attitude of those who ponder these issues in depth with an open mind.
I should add that a great part of my relativistic attitude is informed by what I see as a great and inherent evil occurring in the world that apparently very few others seem to be bothered about - human caused animal suffering on a mass scale. I sometimes wonder if those who do not find this inherently bad can truly be sentient beings - but logic dictates that they are. Acknowledging that others don't share your point of view does not imply inaction in moral issues.
- netcan 17y agoWith some relativist positions it does mandate inaction. They are not very popular outside of very academic applications. One could argue that this is the true or strong relativist position. The place where relativist-like arguments are popular is with anthropologist evolutionist thinkers. From there perspective treating ethics as simply human traits, like a taste for sugar or music. They rarely attempt the normative leap though, go from a relativist argument to a 'you should do this' position. Most vegetarian thinkers tend to be utilitarians. Most people are instinctively utilitarian & deontologist. When these come into conflict (kill a baby to save a village, harvest organs from unwilling person to save 5 people) they feel conflicted.