Quote:
|
The war thing is a great example. Yes, murder is wrong, but so is a government not responding to injustice committed to it’s citizens. George Bush is a moral absolutist, he sees in black and white (proven by his use of words like evil, etc.), and I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But that doesn’t mean he is moral relative because of his actions post 9/11.
|
It becoming difficult to discuss this issue. You keep saying you are an absolutist but you keep making relativist points. You take two moral issues statements.
1. Murder is wrong
2. The state failing to protect its citizens is wrong
BY saying that Bush was right to prioritise number 2 over number 1, means you are comparing these two moral absolutes and assigning a priority. The logical statement you are making is that it is realtively more important for Bush avoid moral absolute number two than it is to avoid moral absolute number 1. This is a textbook case of moral relativity. Just because Bush uses religious imagery to describe moral issues does not make him an absolutist. It makes him an evangelist.
P.S I am also a relativist so I accept that it is more important for the state to protect its citizens, which is why I supported the war in Afghanistan. As a relativist I could even accept that it was a greater wrong to leave Sadam in power than it was to kill a significant number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. An absolutist could not possibly have been favour of either action.