SRS BSNS!!! Ethics: Relativism = Intellectual Laziness

[MekosKing]

[AlexMR]

[EscapePlan9]

[Nortonesque]

I really hope this ethical relativism argument has a sweet dovetail into an argument for veganism.

[black_knight6]

[black_knight6]

My position is basically this:

We might have an epistemic restriction disabling us from conclusively proving any given meta-ethical theory. This includes ethical relativism. As such, the epistemically responsible thing to do is to provisionally (for the time being) abandon the various meta-ethical systems as being "true". Consequently, we adopt, provisionally, the position of relativism only in so far as we take the skeptical position in the absence of conclusive evidence (hell, even in the absence of even remotely convincing, let alone conclusive, evidence - or argument - for any such theory). That skeptical position is a FORM of relativism, which I call "provisional relativism". We do not take relativism to be TRUE - this is vitally important. Instead, it is simply the logical consequence of accepting that we might have an epistemic restriction barring us from answering the meta-ethical question. And, until we can answer that question, we shouldn't adopt ANY position as true. This is why, in one sense, my position is a non-position. However, because nothing is ruled-IN, nothing is ruled-OUT - we can subsume any meta-ethical theory, or combination thereof, into my position with the caveat that we do not accept any such position as TRUE - we merely provisionally accept it because we choose to (perhaps for social or political reaons: full blown relativism can quickly lead to crazy bad stuff).

Simple, isn't it?!

[NorthView]

[black_knight6]

[RedBarracuda]

[RedBarracuda]

[excession]

[k3nt]

[hard2tel]

[black_knight6]

[k3nt]