Obviously, there are moral standards by which human sacrifice is ok. The problem arises when someone tries to construe humanist moral standards (antiracism etc.) to justify human sacrifice as acceptable "in the right context". There exist different, incompatible moral standards.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @sonyaellenmann
It seems to come down to a Kegan 5 discussion. Can you "unsee" your values, and understand that values are constructed rather than intrinsic (nothing has value by itself), that they are chosen, and how picking different values contributes to different social regulation?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @sonyaellenmann
cultural/moral relativism of that severity is a great example of what David calls "the stage 4.5 nihilist trap"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @sonyaellenmann
This is not nihilism. Nihilists don't try to resolve interpretations of history by imposing a "conversation" on an imaginary audience of morally synchronized peers. That's solid Kegan 3.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @sonyaellenmann
I disagree. Moral relativism is absolutely nihilism. Constructing an apologia for a brutal practice from a different culture on some level requires you to believe that *nothing* is sufficient to form a universal moral standard.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
The Kegan 3 position is like that of the original conquistadors. They had an overwhelmingly strong culturally endorsed imperative to do what they were doing so they never questioned the ethics of it. Modern cultural anthropology is an attempt to review this at Kegan 4.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Applying systematized objectivity of some kind is the stage 4 strategy. Attempting to criticize that as with this kind of relativist pomo deconstructive stance is the 4.5 nihilsm trap. Deriving a coherent meta-ethics is the goal of Kegan 5, and she didn't get there.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @sonyaellenmann
Hehe, I think that you interpret Kegan as some kind of moral ladder, instead of the number of layers in the self model. That is a trap in itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @sonyaellenmann
I interpret as a hierarchical system (a ladder, yes) but not a kind of moral ladder. Just that certain types of ethical reasoning are associated with each stage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"Conversation" is a giveaway for considering ethics to be dependent on her hivemind, which means that she is not even self authoring. (Developing meta ethics sounds more like David's personal project, btw...)
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.