Woah, he's managed to find an absolutist theological doctrine to justify moral relativism!
Has anyone noticed that following his little logical scheme there really isn't good or evil, just more good and more evil.
What a clever little ratiocination for calling grey white by comparing it to black! That must be very handy when wanting to justify, oh, whatever noxious means you want to use for your ends. "Napalming that village wasn't 'evil', it was just 'less good'." ü
But isn't the overall name of this game "I'm better than you (and so you're going to Hell!"
It seems to me that it goes beyond gray becoming white in comparison to black, but red or even lettuce or philosophy becoming "white" as the comparisons get farther and farther afield.
Having lived with a mind that followed this very path of "reasoning" I have to say that prior to that experience, i simply would not have believed that people could make these sorts of arguments with straight faces and the passionate courage-of-conviction that I witnessed. And not all the people involved in the argument were mentally ill......exactly.
Ding! Okay, you've illuminated another of the points that bothered me but I couldn't quite put my finger on. Thank you. Yes, I noticed that there's only "more good" and "more evil" in Sparks' model, because he comes right out and says exactly that, but the problem is the juxtaposition of that with absolutist language. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
So it doesn't quite work for an absolutist or for a hardcore relativist, and it doesn't even work for someone like me, who sees absolutism, relativism, and moral-indifference as distinct domains which each apply to different sets of acts. (Oh, I've phrased that badly. I'll have to try to flesh it out some other time.)
Something completely different
Has anyone noticed that following his little logical scheme there really isn't good or evil, just more good and more evil.
What a clever little ratiocination for calling grey white by comparing it to black! That must be very handy when wanting to justify, oh, whatever noxious means you want to use for your ends. "Napalming that village wasn't 'evil', it was just 'less good'."
ü
Re: Something completely different
It seems to me that it goes beyond gray becoming white in comparison to black, but red or even lettuce or philosophy becoming "white" as the comparisons get farther and farther afield.
Having lived with a mind that followed this very path of "reasoning" I have to say that prior to that experience, i simply would not have believed that people could make these sorts of arguments with straight faces and the passionate courage-of-conviction that I witnessed. And not all the people involved in the argument were mentally ill......exactly.
Re: Something completely different
I don't know. I should Google for other things Sparks has written to see whether he does lean that way or not.
Re: Something completely different
So it doesn't quite work for an absolutist or for a hardcore relativist, and it doesn't even work for someone like me, who sees absolutism, relativism, and moral-indifference as distinct domains which each apply to different sets of acts. (Oh, I've phrased that badly. I'll have to try to flesh it out some other time.)