Wishwashington Post on moral relativism

A funny and thoughtful article from satire blog Wishwashington Post: Self-Proclaimed “Intellectual” Takes Moral Relativism Seriously

During a discussion online regarding systematic oppression against minorities, Matheson said, “But tell me, can we ever truly say for sure that “oppression”, as you so dramatically put it, is in fact an objectively bad thing? The world is not merely black and white, and I think perhaps you should consider good things may come from “oppression”. You claim it harms people, yet harm, as with morality, is such a subjective matter, and no self-respecting intellectual would take your arguments seriously.”

2 thoughts on “Wishwashington Post on moral relativism

  1. Independent Radical July 20, 2014 at 00:01

    This is a pretty good parody of modern day “intellectual” thought which is indeed relativistic and anti-morality. Academics might draw a distinction between morality and ethics, then say that certain activities (murder, torture, etc.) are unethic rather than immoral, but I see no reason to draw such a distinction. I think that both terms (“moral” and “ethical”) refer to human beings behaving well towards each other and themselves and I see no reason to distinguish between the two.

    However, post-modernist liberals do not actually endorse logic. They think logic is just another one of those nasty things people use to make (capital “T”) truth statements, which they think are evil (whoops I mean “totalising”.) I suspect most of them know little to nothing about logical fallacies either and in fact base their positions of things completely on emotion (or rather on hedonistic drives, like the desire for sex, which are typically thought of by philosophers as existing on a lower level than both emotion and reason.) Therefore the article gives post-modernist academics a little too much credit by implying that they actually think about stuff and also implies that they need to be less rational, when in fact they are not rational enough.

    • Francois Tremblay July 20, 2014 at 00:23

      I call it linear thinking- an assembly-line sort of reasoning undertaken with the least amount of thinking possible.

      I draw a difference between morality and ethics such that “morality” refers to evaluation of action based on the values of specific individuals (esp. the individual who commits the action) and “ethics” refers to evaluation of action based on the interests of society (e.g. freedom, equality, consent, well-being) or some component of society.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: