Mike wrote:
>what about abortion? what about
> killing an animal? what about killing a plant? genesis instructs us
that
> fruit and seeds shall be our food as the eating of such is the gift of the
> plant to us for helping it survive. what about spending lavish amounts
of
> money on opera productions while people starve elsewhere, is that wrong?
That's the point: when you discuss what's right or wrong, you're doing that
upon a cultural background! You're trying to define what's Imoral, not being
Amoral. The consequence of cultural relativism is amorality. What's the
problem about that?
1st: If everything is relative at all times, so is relativism. As relativism
is self-contradictory, it can't serve as basis for anything, not even
itself. It's pre-logical.
2nd: Cultural relativism applied within a certain culture would lead us to
extinguishing the legal system and take us back to Stone Age. It's not only
illogical. It has terrible consequences!
> i would concede your point that opera singing requires academic
training
> to do the 'right' way. i would argue against its need for academic
training
> justifying its value. i knew someone who earned a doctarate in ancient
> languages. he expected doors to open upon receiving his degree.
Cultural value is not commercial value. BTW, here comes another problem: if
wide recognition determines value ( as something RIGHT ), how can people
ever change their minds??? Ancient languages are culturally valuable. If
they open doors or not, that's something completely different.
I just don't believe you dispute the intrinsic value of knowing over not
knowing. How can something that exists be less than something that doesn't?
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|  |
