I was about to stand and applause, until I realized...
Let’s say I like flying, I like the earth’s ecology, I think large-scale flying is killing the earth’s ecology, I think my individual flying is not capable of making a difference to the planet’s ecology, and I think technologically advanced cultures capable of sustaining commercial human flight only appear superior because they’re able to offload the costs of their advancement to the rest of the earth’s population [1].
And I’m at 30,000 feet. Am I a hypocrite?
Worse, am I Richard Dawkins, once you clip of the last item on the first paragraph?
I think you may have misunderstood the point Dawkins was making. It wasn’t “if you’re in an aeroplane, you aren’t entitled to denigrate the society whose achievements made that possible”. It was “If you’re in an aeroplane, you aren’t entitled to claim that all truth is relative, because the fact that the aeroplane stays in the air is dependent on a very particular set of notions about truth, which demonstrably work better than their rivals—as demonstrated by the fact that our aeroplanes actually fly.”
Okay, point taken. But to nitpick, that sounds more like epistemological relativism than cultural—though he can be forgiven for not expecting his audience to be sensitive to the difference. And the context makes it clear too.
I was about to stand and applause, until I realized...
Let’s say I like flying, I like the earth’s ecology, I think large-scale flying is killing the earth’s ecology, I think my individual flying is not capable of making a difference to the planet’s ecology, and I think technologically advanced cultures capable of sustaining commercial human flight only appear superior because they’re able to offload the costs of their advancement to the rest of the earth’s population [1].
And I’m at 30,000 feet. Am I a hypocrite?
Worse, am I Richard Dawkins, once you clip of the last item on the first paragraph?
[1] Not my actual beliefs. Except one.
I think you may have misunderstood the point Dawkins was making. It wasn’t “if you’re in an aeroplane, you aren’t entitled to denigrate the society whose achievements made that possible”. It was “If you’re in an aeroplane, you aren’t entitled to claim that all truth is relative, because the fact that the aeroplane stays in the air is dependent on a very particular set of notions about truth, which demonstrably work better than their rivals—as demonstrated by the fact that our aeroplanes actually fly.”
Some context that may be helpful.
Okay, point taken. But to nitpick, that sounds more like epistemological relativism than cultural—though he can be forgiven for not expecting his audience to be sensitive to the difference. And the context makes it clear too.