|
Pardon my Rant :
Certainly any real training in Philosophy acquaints one with the fact that moral relativism does not consider itself an absolute.
The Cardinal said the goals of moral relativism are Ego as God, hmmmmm. . . . Funny, I'm moral relativist; I have been for a long time, and my guiding lights are provided by empirical rationalism, with caveats regarding the nature of proof, which never assumes 100% anything, it is not completely self-referential, unlike some I can think of . . . who, BTW, sometimes choose to start wars, or hold an Inquisition. Have you ever heard of an Auto de Fe? That's absolutist.
...................................
So whose camp is the Cardinal Ratzinger in anyway? IMO, he's either very confused, actively misleading, or dictating something about what he wants us to think Moral Relativism is, *AND* he's got it wrong.
I am a moral relativist, many people would tell you that I am hyper-aware of myself and others. I ask why a lot.
People who say there is no right and no wrong are not moral relativists; they are absolutists masquerading as relativists, and sometimes they are fascists too, about other people's lives.
And any relativist knows a singularity, such as ego, is a (cognitive) error in the empirical, phenomenological, and relative facts of human experience as it is Lived in ALL of its contexts . . .. including "meanings", or Why?, ergo MR not likely to try to assume absolute power over anything except one's self, to whatever extent possible, and really freely, according to clearly designed values, which I/we have acquired, evaluated, and adapted functionally for the good of self and others, within our own organic comunities.
Afterall, ethics doesn't even really need religion, but I assume a distinction between "religion" and spiritual phenomenology. To me religion appears to be a business.
|