From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: What about when there's complete disagreement? (was Re: After stuff)
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.02
Lines: 63

[ There are actually some talk.abortion related comments below, believe it or
  not... ]

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <930422.113530.7w1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk# mathew <mathew@mant
> is.co.uk> writes:
> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> #> Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two
> #> people grotesquely disagree.  Is it:
> #> 
> #> (a) Both are right
> #> 
> #> (b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a 
> #>     pretty good idea who it is
> #> 
> #> (c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so
> #>     we make our best guess if we really must make a decision.
> #> 
> #> (d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that
> #>      whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question,
> #>      and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer)
> #> 
> #> (e) Something else.  A short, positive assertion would be nice.
> #
> #From whose point of view would you like to know what relativism concludes? 
> #One of the people involved in the argument, or some third person observing
> #the arguers?
> 
> I've just come from responding another of your posts, where some pennies
> have dropped for me.  But it would clarify further if you would answer
> from the point of view of any disinterested observers - perhaps an
> observer as likely to be in position A as in position B (where A and B
> disagree) in the future, and have his or her conclusion now binding on
> them at that time.

Well, if our observer X is as likely to be in A's position as B's, and if he
agrees that both A and B are making appropriate observations and inferences
regarding the situation, then I would expect him to conclude that there is no
right answer.  Hopefully there would be some other factor which would allow
him to make some judgement regarding which answer to accept.

If, on the other hand, he disagrees with the principles of either A or B, I
suspect he would make a decision in favour of the other one.

It is unfortunately the case that not all moral arguments have answers from
all perspectives.  For instance, I am completely unable to come to any
conclusion regarding whether abortion should be allowed or not, from my
perspective.  In an ideal world, all living things would have a right to
life; but in an ideal world, women would have the absolute right to do what
they like with their own bodies.  Clearly there is no way to resolve in
favour of both these principles.  Therefore I agree with the compromise
solution of allowing abortion up to a certain time after conception, and
deciding on the time based on various (sometimes ill-defined) criteria.  This
is also a sensible move, I think, because it lets people make their own
decisions (within reason).  And for what it's worth, I am reasonably happy
with current UK abortion law.

Similarly, the situation in what's left of Yugoslavia is a horrible mess, and
I really can't see my way to any sort of conclusion.  There, I don't even
know enough to imagine what sort of compromise one might manage.


mathew
