tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post2181820241565325435..comments2024-03-17T11:54:10.124+11:00Comments on Journeyman Philosopher: Moral relativism – a much abused and misconstrued termPaul P. Mealinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-4184095517874657202014-10-23T17:38:37.632+11:002014-10-23T17:38:37.632+11:00I assume your citation is correct, as I don’t have...I assume your citation is correct, as I don’t have ready access to the article right now. For all I know you might be Beillard. However, I think your distinction is a pedantic one, and, given the context, I’m not sure it matters. The important point about language is that people understand my meaning, and I’m sure they do, as I’m sure you do. <br /><br />As for your point that something has to be intelligible to be absurd, then, yes, my argument has to be intelligible for people to appreciate that my analysis draws the conclusion of ‘absurdity’. So maybe the mistake is that I attached my conclusion to Beillard’s. He says that moral relativism is unintelligible, in that, upon analysis, it makes no sense. But ‘makes no sense’ could be interpreted as ‘absurd’. Having said that, his argument is perfectly intelligible.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-8500907905665014552014-10-23T05:50:23.725+11:002014-10-23T05:50:23.725+11:00Beillard does not argue that relativism is "a...Beillard does not argue that relativism is "absurd" but that it is unintelligible -- in other words that it means nothing that we can understand. Notice it can't be both. If something is absurd it has to be intelligible. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com