Quote
and contends that opposing moral positions have no truth value, and that there is no preferred standard of reference by which to judge them.
simplistic interpretation. there is no “objective truth value”. we can argue about whether truth can be subjective or not, but the fact remains that the statement “murder is wrong” has no objective truth value, but it has subjective truth value (from the relativist perspective that is). for preferred standard of reference, thats just wrong. there are always moral standards to judge actions against, you must simply realize that the standard has no inherent truth value. any truth value is instilled by people.
Quote
Further is renders science open to subjective evaluations and Denys its validity. It portends to solve disharmony, but leads to further erosion of a basic framework or foundation of knowledge.
how?
The first part depends on your interpretation of this problem since Hume, Heidegger,Sarte and countless others have addressed this problem it all depends on the orientation. Hume i believed in his “A Treatise of Human Nature” that introduces an old idea of Utilitarianism as his contribution to provide “the greatest good to the most possible” and therein lies his one solution but fails IMO to be anything more than open the interpretation of what is “good” to be entirely subjective.
Sarte the worst provocateur of “Atheistic existentialism” contends:
“If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism”
So as a consequence we have a world devoid of value, no real foundation of knowledge as everything is our impression of it.
Of the many concepts of this problem only Ayn Rand had any real grasp of the truth IMO with the idea of “objectivism”
- "Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. "
2)" Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
- “The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”
This is a profound interpretation of the problem, while is does not subjucate interpretation and your “feeling” about something as the prima facia “truth” of it.
The second part of your comments:
Because this foundation is built on “cardboard” so people are actually allowed to think the world is flat and that the stork drops off babies and we never landed on the moon. This psycopathic pandoras box of ideas that can flow from its consequences denegrate mans “heroic” approaches to greater glory under Rands philosophy. It works perfectly if you were Sarte however. Please dont ask why this is THIS is so… you have to read their books.