(The reason why I replied initially is that you were saying/implying that moral relativity is pretty similar to no morals at all.)
-
-
Replying to @fronxer
I am saying that in the sense that one cannot claim to stand for LGBT rights if one only does so for white westerners.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @fronxer
If that disappears in relation to Pakistani or Ugandan LGBTs & u say 'Its their culture to oppose LGBT rights & we shld respect it'
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Well yeah, I agree. But that's just the most lazy-ass application of 'moral relativity' possible!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ok, but I find it a mistake to say that that's what 'moral relativity' means, and that therefore moral relativity is bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Well, it is what I mean by moral relativity. We can disagree abt the best definition but more important to discuss the substance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Do moral relativists, by your definition, ever disagree with something happening outside of the Western world?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Almost no-one is a pure moral relativist. If pressed they will acknowledge that eg child marriage is wrong but they'd rather not
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
For me, it would only make sense to use the term 'morals' if it's about assigning both 'good' and 'bad' labels—not exclusively one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, the word can be used to describe a sense of right & wrong & customs pertaining to both.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.