Friday, October 28, 2016

Are morals objective? Does the law of noncontradiction apply here?

If Bill Cosby says that if you are wealthy, powerful, and famous enough, you don't need a woman's permission to have sex with her, and Gloria Allred thinks that this is not true, can both of them be right? (Yes, I know the law prohibits rape. But at one point in time, the law prohibited helping a slave escape.)

If moral relativism is true, then neither of them are wrong, since there is nothing to  be right or wrong about. 

9 comments:

Ilíon said...

Ah! but if moral relativism is a truth about the nature of reality, then there is no obligation to observe the law of noncontradiction when one does not wish to do so.

Joe Hinman said...

Rather than talk about objective morals I prefer to say morality has a universal grounding. Since humans can't be objective I think in terms of less subjective, or inter-subjective.

Rasmus Møller said...

For the relativist, rape could be viewed as an inter-subjective, physical negociation, universally grounded in power and desire.

Dave Duffy said...

Gloria Allred has her nose in the air for publicly. She is there (if the cameras are) for the Bill Cosby and Donald Trump accusers. As for the Bill Clinton accusers, not so much. Vic, couldn't you find someone with a better set of principled values to illustrate your point?

Joe Hinman said...

Did Cosby say that? i don't think so Trump did.

SteveK said...

Gloria's claim about objective reality is objectively false while Cosby's is objectively true. Sort it out from there. What I find most interesting is that "skeptics" are always pushing hard for people to stick with objective facts - except when it comes to this subject.

Nick Frey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Frey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Frey said...

In order to deny or falsify the law of noncontradiction, you must use the law of non contradiction.

I really enjoyed your comment! I've been thinking on this for months!