Once I have my morality, I’m going to feel perfectly free to criticize other people who don’t go along with it.
And vice versa.
The critique is not on the basis that those people are objectively making a mistake, that they’re making a mistake if they say 2 plus 2 equals 5 or the universe is contracting or something like that. It’s a different criticism. It’s saying that according to my version of morality, they’re doing something wrong. Here’s why I think my version of morality is good. That’s it. Okay? It’s not objective and foundational, but I have no reason to say I’m not allowed to make that critique.
The symmetry problem, the fact that every relativist can equally criticise every other,
is a bug not a feature. If there is no reasoned way to resolve a dispute, force will take the place of reason. In fact, it’s a straw man to say that the realist objection to relativism.is that relativists can’t criticise… The actual point is that it is in vain … No relativist has. motivation to.change their mind.
That should probably read Humean.
And vice versa.
The symmetry problem, the fact that every relativist can equally criticise every other, is a bug not a feature. If there is no reasoned way to resolve a dispute, force will take the place of reason. In fact, it’s a straw man to say that the realist objection to relativism.is that relativists can’t criticise… The actual point is that it is in vain … No relativist has. motivation to.change their mind.
You use the logic “A->B, B is unpleasant, hence A is false”.
No, I use the logic “thing needs additional component to work”. My approach is based on replacing is-true with is-useful.