Sat 6 Dec, 2014 03:34 am
Circular Ethics and Relativism and Nature
The OED is not a language academy. It enters words according to scale of usage rather than value to the language, or by some ethical standard. As a result any word that is coined can be taken as simply a word, that may be used 'freely'. There is no vulgarism that cannot be used in the media or in public. Vulgarity is simply prejudice, such as is inherited from Saxon as opposed to Norman French.
When this is allied to the idea that what is natural is virtuous, as if Nature makes moral decisions, almost any act can be justified as a product of nature. Those between consenting adults [over what indeterminate age?] may be treated as a 'right' in any public place. To be denied natural rights is prejudice, bigoted, and 'phobia. A clinical fear of something has been transmuted into ethics.
Nothing is impolite therefore nothing is polite either.
Nothing is indiscreet therefore nothing is discreet.
Nothing is immoral therefore nothing is moral. - Except within the elementary level of ethics.
That is to say acts which are contrary to the stability and functioning of society - to obey the law. Vicious acts such as murder are bound to be illegal, other than when undertaken for lawful purposes.
The interesting level is above that. Where one sort of society is defined in contrast and opposition to other fundamental types of society. Principally, the altruist society as contrasted with the morally relativist society - which is where this argument began. And, by the way, murder becomes an act not merely against the law but of malice or amorality.
When this is allied to the idea that what is natural is virtuous, as if Nature makes moral decisions, almost any act can be justified as a product of nature.
The naturalistic fallacy, yes.
the altruist society as contrasted with the morally relativist society
I'm not immediately familiar with this contrast, at least, not in those terms. Would you mind unpacking that bit a little for me?