I agree with others that this thread demonstrates the failure case of cultural relativism. True: They didn't think what they were doing was wrong, and intent is part of how we evaluate moral culpability. False: We shouldn't use our contemporary standards to judge these practices. https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178681334050822 …
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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...)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It is very tempting to think of people not sharing your values as having a lower stage of mental development, isn’t it.
-
I think you can point at almost any group and be like "they're stage 3" or [insert whichever stage] because a significant proportion will be
-
perhaps a variation on the chinese robber problem?
-
Is there a name for the fallacy where one thinks that people with different ethics must surely be less self aware?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
lol yea ppl never question the ethics of stuff they have an overwhelming imperative to do
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.