Well actually, I was just trying to find out why "moral relativism" seems to be such a trendy phrase for conservatives right now. But I've been enjoying Max and subtomic's philosophical discussion so much that I decided to just let it go.
Conservatives have always been better at using labels effectively. Ronald Reagan made "liberal" a dirty word, for some odd reason (well, the reason wasn't odd, his success was). Look up the dictionary definition. It's actually a very nice word. Liberals have never had that much success in using labels. Probably because being liberal generally means one is progressive... which in turn, means that one would be labelling the status quo with pejoratives. Most people don't take kindly to that. And then there's inevitable hypocrisy implicit in the situation... a liberal politiican seeking to join the establishment has more trouble using the word "establishment" as a pejorative, given his own campaign. he can argue that the establishment needs fresh blood, but not that there's anything inherently wrong with it (ok, well, he can do that, too... but then he might end up like Oren Hatch, who won on a promise to not be a permanent Washington insider, then broke his own campaign promise by running past his own limit).
Unfortunately it is this type of thinking that results in Nazi prisoners becoming Nazi guards. These are not consequences of my action or choice. These are consequences the guard is choosing. Dilemmas can be interesting for discussion though. I once had this discussion and the way people answered I found most interesting. What would you do? You have two choices: eat a **** (crap) sandwich or go to jail for a year. I'm afraid I would do the time. As Dirty Harry once said...'A man's got to know his limitations.'
Liberals labeled themselves liberal. Liberal, when used in a political context, is a very nice word which is why the democrats choose to embrace it. Both the democratic and republican party are decendants from liberals as both parties believe in the principles feelings of the Constitution and Declaration of independence. I've criticized the constitution in the past, but my critism is based on addressing parts that are being abused. The underlying principles rock.
Hayes: Almost none. However, that analogy would have taken more exposition. Can't expect everyone to have read Plato. Moreover, Plato implied that it was possible to "see the sun." Such is the task of the philosopher. I maintain that it's impossible. Finally, I'm not a Platonist... and using his metaphor might confuse the issue.
As I started reading this all I could think of is "this is sounding very platonic." And I'm now taking my third class that deals with him (although I consider myself no expert by any definition of the word, its quite hard to fully understand Plato, and none of the classes were just about Plato, he was just involved)! I agree that the word 'absolute' in itself creates degrees of evils or truths or anything else. The blind man analogy was good for its purpose. To Plato, no one can 'see' anything in its true form. In that sense, everyone is blind. Only the philosophers can attain knowledge of the truth. I think a great example of right and wrong or good and evil would be that of cannibalism. Many civilizations have practiced it yet today we find it barbaric and wrong/evil. It's not about choosing a lesser of two evils. It's about what we consider wrong and what others deem as right. Does something that's 'right' always have to be justified?
