And it looks like the Civil War will be over White Supremacy.
Just looking at the material you quote about the author gives us cause for concern:
After successfully working in both the private sector and as a civil servant, Tom was fired without cause from his post of Town Manager in Jackman, Maine in a story that made national headlines in his assertions that Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization, that Whites deserve the same rights and consideration as all other people, and against Marxist subversion.
So he’s an Islamophobe, quite possibly a White Supremacist and likes accusing anyone even vaguely to the left of being a communist. Not exactly a trustworthy source.
Fox News agrees that his website supports voluntary racial segregation and attacks Islam. Indeed it goes further than the other two by saying that the New Albion project:
...wants to preserve the white majority of northern New England
And the ADL says he wants that majority to be a staggering 95%. And any non-white who doesn’t agree will be cast out
For the remaining 5% he says, While those who work may find their place, those who agitate against us must be cast out. Obviously, no such solution could work under the framework of a democratic government, so Kawczynski leaves many details unexplained.
The ADL also quotes him as saying:
You don't have to hate to see cold hard statistics and realize in a significant way that the average black in America has less intellectual aptitude. So, unless you perpetually give them free advantages, they would fall behind. I'm pretty sure they know this which is why they're perpetually angry. Tom Kawczynski, GAB, November 2017
Apparently he’s now selling quack COVID cures. And still promoting his white ethnostate ideas.
On a related issue the owners of the Dr Seuss books have decided to take 6 of the less popular titles out of print, citing concerns about the content.
Conservatives naturally cite this as Liberal Censorship - although they often discuss different books that are staying in print (odd that). They are even buying large quantities of the other books, as if giving money to the company that made the decision is some sort of punishment.
It’s pretty clear that the Conservative reaction is not very rational or concerned with the truth,
The main point you need to understand is that humans are fallible. That is hardly an anti-Christian idea - in fact most Christians will affirm it.
Skepticism, in the sense used by Larry Hamelin and Sim recognises that. Human claims should not be confused with absolute truth. Even our own claims should not be - we absolutely should recognise our own fallibility and take steps to account for it. It is not that there is no absolute truth or even that humans can’t make absolutely true statements. It’s just that very few statements made by humans can be shown to be absolutely true.
The main conflict is not over whether there is an absolute truth. It is over human claims to have absolute truth. Should those claims be accepted as absolute truth in the absence of evidence ? Why ?
And the most recent essay on Stephen Law’s blog is absolutely relevant.
For the record I hold that female circumcision is wrong, and astrology is bunk.
(Morality is a bit fraught and I think it tends to fall between what Laws calls interesting relativism and conceptual relativism. On the other hand, strology would need a lot of watering down to get to a position where it’s sort of defensible)
quote:Where does this eminent philosopher get off on calling differing opinions on morality differing truths?
He doesn’t. In fact you seem closer to that view than he is. If morality is purely decided by social consensus (I say that there is a bit more to it than that) then different societies can have different moral truths.
quote:I don't know, PaulK. When the man says so in his own paper I have a tendency to assume he accepts such
In fact he doesn’t say so. The quote on polygamy is not his view. It is introduced with the sentence
Here is a common line of argument.
And the italicised text following gives that argument.
In the second paragraph following he actually says:
The above argument for relativism about moral truth has a certain superficial appeal. But it’s fatally flawed
I hardly think that saying that an argument is fatally flawed is an endorsement.
I don’t know why you even think that the second paragraph you quote helps you since it is attacking an argument made by relativists. His point there is:
So, contrary to what some relativists suggest, those who reject relativism need not be arrogant, jackbooted bullies intent on ramming their beliefs down everyone else’s throat.
quote:He keeps switching his definition of truth from opinion to factual knowledge and back trying to treat them equally
quote:Societies do not possess differing physical facts on moral issues but differing opinions on how to react to those facts.
If morality is determined by social consensus as you said then it seems that there are moral facts that are different in different societies. According to you female circumcision is moral in the societies that accept it. I disagree. But not because I think that there is some absolute morality out there which says so.
quote:A black man is still a black man in America or in Egypt. The facts don't change. What may change is the opinion of whether it is moral to hang him. That is not a difference in Moral Truths. That is a difference in opinion on the value of human life. It is a difference in moral conduct not moral truth relative or otherwise.
It seems that you are reducing morality to the uninteresting relativism of Law’s essay. It’s a matter of taste, like liking sausages. It’s more than saying it is just opinion - since opinions can be wrong, while personal likes and dislikes can’t be. Or maybe you do say that there is a correct value of human life and one of the societies is wrong (which is a separate question from whether we know or can know what the correct value is).
quote:What he is referring to as fatally flawed is the argument that relative morality "... (is) precisely why it would be wrong for us arrogantly to impose our own particular moral point of view about polygamy on these other cultures."
That’s what you quoted before, so it seems that you are agreeing with me that he does not endorse that view, as you claimed in your previous post,
quote:He is still referring to these things as "truths". They are not. They are moral opinions. That is my objection. Not his example of polygamy
Opinions are generally held to be true, so that isn’t much of an objection. Calling it an opinion only argues for uncertainty over whether it is actually true or not.
quote:The facts are the same. The little girl's clit is being brutally cut off.
Yes, it is "moral" in that culture. It is an acceptable social practice. That is their moral opinion.
So why the scare quotes? Either it is moral - and if you’re right that morality is decided by social consensus is is - or it isn’t.
quote:Of course personal likes and dislikes can be wrong
They can’t be incorrect. There is no fact of the matter that sausages should be liked by everyone,
quote:The truths are not different.
If morality is decided by social consensus - as you claimed - they are. If you now want to argue that there is some absolute morality that might disagree - as your use of the word opinion and your insistence that the truth remains the same suggest - then please do so explicitly.
Well, no. You quoted an argument he disagreed with as if it expressed his view. That isn’t nuance, that’s error,
quote:We're talking morality here. The facts that inform the morality can be said to be true or false. The morality itself has no truth value.
So why didn’t you just say that? You can embrace nihilism if you want, but that itself is an opinion.
quote:And which do you think it is?
I don’t think that moral truths are determined by social consensus as you seemed to say.
quote:Get real. We're not talking the personal, non-intrusive, strictly internal feeling about sausages. We're talking about the violation and mutilation of another human being. Personal likes and actions can be very wrong.
I was talking about truth rather than moral evaluation.
But according to you moral judgements are just opinions with no real truth value. So when you say that they can be wrong you mean that they can be wrong in your opinion (and in the opinion of others) but it is meaningless to say that they are actually wrong.
quote:We really aren't communicating at all are we.
The problem seems to be mostly at your end. This is the first time in this discussion you have said that there are no moral truths, and even then you seem to contradict that. If you can’t even be clear about the basics of your own position how can you hope to have a meaningful discussion?
quote:And I am talking moral evaluation not truth.
And that was a mistake.
quote:My contention is that relative morality is the only game in town.
Then why are you a nihilist rather than a relativist ?
quote:The view that says because all morality is relative we, as a human society, need to accept such barbaric bloody mutilation on children is humanely abhorrent. That view may be consistent with the philosophical purity of the ivory tower but it fails, miserably, as a human construct.
But - because of your nihilism - you can’t say that it is actually wrong. Only that you object to it. I don’t think that does much better - it’s just as easy to defend abhorrent practices using it as it is to object to them.