Keep your hair on
Baldie.
It seems that the Baldie member of the Relatavian delegation just won’t let this one drop. He notes that the Baldies of Hairland didn’t use to be treated as second class citizens until fairly recently, but the others remind him that that was then and this is now. In fact, what is right is right now regardless of how it was once considered or might be considered in the future.
The Baldie notes that all the problems are found in a part of the country that was formerly part of Loveland and thinks that the sort of tolerance that’s found in Relatavia would be practised there as well.
But the Chief Minister of Hairland still wants an answer to yesterday’s question. “Are you trying to impose your values on us?”
Each of the Relatavians will answer for themselves.
I suppose this is meant to be relativism taken to an absurd extreme where relativists not only respect cultures in a general sense but cultures in a personal sense as well. The whole delegation has to respond as individuals because they respect each other’s views. As the book puts it, what is right for one person isn’t necessarily right for others. Relativism also seems to imply that universal morality doesn’t exist. Most people belong to the set of those who believe that doing X is wrong, but a few will take a contrary view. How we regard such people would then seem to depend on the degree to which we value the moral that they’re violating and how much that violation is seen as invidious to society in general. And it might be the person who violates a moral is not someone who the rest of society can afford to offend.
For example:
The Baldie notes that all the problems are found in a part of the country that was formerly part of Loveland and thinks that the sort of tolerance that’s found in Relatavia would be practised there as well.
But the Chief Minister of Hairland still wants an answer to yesterday’s question. “Are you trying to impose your values on us?”
Each of the Relatavians will answer for themselves.
I suppose this is meant to be relativism taken to an absurd extreme where relativists not only respect cultures in a general sense but cultures in a personal sense as well. The whole delegation has to respond as individuals because they respect each other’s views. As the book puts it, what is right for one person isn’t necessarily right for others. Relativism also seems to imply that universal morality doesn’t exist. Most people belong to the set of those who believe that doing X is wrong, but a few will take a contrary view. How we regard such people would then seem to depend on the degree to which we value the moral that they’re violating and how much that violation is seen as invidious to society in general. And it might be the person who violates a moral is not someone who the rest of society can afford to offend.
For example:
“Homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God.”
And what about the king? Is he an abomination in the sight of God?
“Well, no. He’s divinely anointed.”
And he’s also the one homosexual who can have you executed on a whim.
“Yeah, there is that.”
It’s probably very hard not to be a relativist for the simple fact that we must often temper our views on a particular situation because to do otherwise would be catastrophic and we’d be unable to function. As I said in an earlier post in this series, to be an absolute Epicurean or Stoic or <insert name of philosophy here> is an indulgence that few of us can afford.
Tomorrow, the Relatavians are going hunting for dinner. Well, it’s a Hairland custom so it’ll be all right to do so.
Comments