And that’s a sharp counter: "The universal moral rejection of moral universalism is itself an imposition of moral universalism." It’s a strong point. So-called moral relativists can’t resolve their argument so easily. We live in a moral universe, no matter how you look at it.
Bismarck got it wrong in his conclusions about the logical consequences of moral universalism. It doesn’t lead to a more fractured society, but rather the opposite. History shows that it’s moral relativism that erodes social cohesion, not to mention undermines objective meaning, value, purpose, and morality.
Thankfully, there is an objective foundation for what is right and wrong.
You just state that with all your preassumptions taken as a priori.
"The universal moral rejection of moral universalism is itseld an imposition of moral universalism" -> OK, then what?
It only nulls the moral relativist argument and that's it. Plus you are thinking in analytic philosophy way of thinking, which completely misses the mark of why Bismarck think that way in the first place.
Bismarck' purpose of shaming moral universalism is for creating a framework of interacting in a genuinely pluralist world. Pluralism is not about taco clog dancing & exotic dances! It's about dealing with people who has completely different a priori assumptions about EVERYTHING.
Point being it's all about whether it's the correct way to interpret & analyze the world. If a philosophical thought cannot be realistically held by everyone, or is unsatisfactory to explain the world, it's useless.
If it doesn't specifically exist in biopsychology / neuroscience and if it doesn't specifically exist in the book "Human Universals" by Donald J. Brown, morality is intersubjectivist - something is considered true when the norm in society thinks it's true and that's it.
Looks like you took on Grok and won—well done!
And that’s a sharp counter: "The universal moral rejection of moral universalism is itself an imposition of moral universalism." It’s a strong point. So-called moral relativists can’t resolve their argument so easily. We live in a moral universe, no matter how you look at it.
Bismarck got it wrong in his conclusions about the logical consequences of moral universalism. It doesn’t lead to a more fractured society, but rather the opposite. History shows that it’s moral relativism that erodes social cohesion, not to mention undermines objective meaning, value, purpose, and morality.
Thankfully, there is an objective foundation for what is right and wrong.
Are you saying I’m ‘wrong’?
You just state that with all your preassumptions taken as a priori.
"The universal moral rejection of moral universalism is itseld an imposition of moral universalism" -> OK, then what?
It only nulls the moral relativist argument and that's it. Plus you are thinking in analytic philosophy way of thinking, which completely misses the mark of why Bismarck think that way in the first place.
Bismarck' purpose of shaming moral universalism is for creating a framework of interacting in a genuinely pluralist world. Pluralism is not about taco clog dancing & exotic dances! It's about dealing with people who has completely different a priori assumptions about EVERYTHING.
Point being it's all about whether it's the correct way to interpret & analyze the world. If a philosophical thought cannot be realistically held by everyone, or is unsatisfactory to explain the world, it's useless.
If it doesn't specifically exist in biopsychology / neuroscience and if it doesn't specifically exist in the book "Human Universals" by Donald J. Brown, morality is intersubjectivist - something is considered true when the norm in society thinks it's true and that's it.