Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Definitions of Morality Message-ID: <1358@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 10:42:46 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1358 Posted: Fri Aug 23 10:42:46 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 26-Aug-85 00:52:54 EDT References: <374@aero.ARPA> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 30 Here's a curious fact which I came upon yesterday. But first let we define a couple of terms: MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true, regardless of which moral system you subscribe to. (not to be confused with absolute morals) ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that any particular moral system is correct. (as compared to ordinary moral relativism, which holds that it is impossible within any particular moral system to judge that another is incorrect) The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, because it states a moral absolute. Some moral systems do in fact state that it can be determined that they are correct and others are wrong. Some simply state that it can be determined that certain morals are always incorrect. According to absolute moral relativism, however, such conclusions are incorrect. This means that this principle that you cannot determine incorrectness is a moral absolute, and that one can therefore determine outside of any particular system that a particular system is incorrect, contrary to absolute moral relativism. Hence, absolute moral relativism cannot be correct. (Incidentally, this would seem to imply that there are moral absolutes, since the denial of this leads to the same contradiction.) Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe