Moral relativism holds that there are moral disagreements about what truth is and that moral judgments are not absolute, but relative to a social group or groups. If you believe that the following statement is a truism: "Nothing is really right or wrong, but thinking makes it so" -then you are probably in that school. I think it's for you to decide. As for myself, I try to exercise caution when confronted with it simply because it quickly lurches into nonsense. Furthermore, I've yet to meet someone who truly believes it. Most of those who believe that we should not judge due to the mercurial condition of morality -actually judge all the time. Consider the left and political correctness. Those statements that are deemed politically incorrect must be eradicated from our language to the point of being made illegal. That's absolutist. Consider multiculturalism. Who really believes that all cultures are equal and worthy of due dignity? There have been cultures that practiced cannibalism. There are cultures that mutilate the genitalia of girls. Are these to be respected and defended as much as British culture? The point is that a moral relativist cannot appeal to a standard of behavior because by definition, it has no standard. For an idea of what that could mean in practical terms, see Hobbes, "state of nature." Thus the shivers up my spine.
Again, my use of the word "may" allows for either he did or didn't. I made no conclusion and no statement of fact. I've heard an allegation and repeated that allegation and asked you to substantiate a source that would end the matter in Dempsey's favor. There is nothing untoward about that. Your are taking swings at a phantom here, man. You said the allegation was disproven. It was a relief to hear and so I asked you to share where you heard that. Sure. If your source is the court record and it was his ex who made the claim and the claim was unfounded, then I'm as happy as the rest of Dempsey's fans who want to put the allegation to rest.
The court record was reprinted in a two page article in The Ring. I appear to have misunderstood your agenda, my mistake . PEACE.
I´m neither a relativist nor an absolutist. I think the following three thesis to be true. And all at the same time. Those are that there are: 1. The absolute and universal basic ethics that allow us to live together in social groups and define us as primates and humans. Example: Murder is wrong. 2. The relative morals that are different in different times and different cultures. Example: the change/difference of morals regarding if a woman should go as a virgin into marriage or not. 3. The absolute morals at a certain point in time in a certain culture. Example: Racism is wrong. Today, Western culture. I think there is more to it than to see morals as something aboslute or relative. Yes, because relativism is as much not fitting as absolutism only fits if you aren´t consider the grand schemes of things. See, you aren´t considering the grand schemes of things here. You see it out of the point of view of number three here, out of the point of view of outr culture and our time. Our morals. And when you use this point of view you are right. Those cultures are not respectable as the Western one - I don´t think a British culture really exist, there are more things the Western nations have in common than what devides them. And as a person who grew up and lives in our times and our culture I agree with you whole-heartly. But that´s a bit short sighted. Try to think out of the box. See my thesis number two. When you go by this one, the one you would describe as relativist, we can´t know if we are right here when we say they are wrong. They can neither. Can we judge them? Have we the right to do so? IMO not. Then use the first theses. Are the basic ethics that makes it possible for humans to live in social groups and defines them intact? Well, they live in working social groups. So, yes, they are intact. And thus going by that thesis, their culture is as respectable as the Western one. I think all three things are true at the same time. I have all three opinions. Depends what point of view I take on, what thesis I apply. That´s true. Thesis number two doesn´t work in your daily live. The thesis you have to go here is thesis number one and three. IMO, everybody who lives in Western culture has to live by it´s rules. No relativism possible. But when you want to look at it from a scientific or philosopphical point of view than thesis number 2 has to be applied. I read Hobbes but that was more than ten years ago. Personally, I try to go by "the golden rule" and the categorical imperative of Kant in my day to day life - both are more or less the same though. But I although try to take a step back, look at things from a disctance without judging, just taking things for what they are. So, in the end I have at least two opinions on most things, depends what point of view I take on.
You're wrong in your assumption. I tend to be an absolutist in most matters that don't have to do with ice cream flavors. Cannibalism and the mutilation of young girls to decrease libido and to serve as a preventative to illicit sexual behavior was (and remains) wrong. While it is not for me to judge the personhood of those who practice it, we shouldn't waffle in our condemnation of the behavior. Shake yourself loose from an untenable position. Female genital cutting is wrong... yesterday and today, here or there. IMO, absolutely. We most certainly can judge at least that aspect of the culture, and we most certainly should. You state that you practice the golden rule in your daily life -that should be commended; however in this instance you are applying it on behalf of the wrong victims. The cannibal and the mutilator are less worthy of protection than their victims. Trying to understand or justify their actions merely distracts from the problem. This is not, by the way, a defense of imperialism. Destroying a total culture from the ground up and engaging in mass murder of native populations is reprehensible. An absolutist would not even whisper these views. I think that you may be a waffling relativist. (No disrespect meant, you defend your position well.) Some social groups' basic ethics makes it possible for a % of humans to live -or live in peace- in the social group. The social group survives, but is that your measure...? It survives or it is a working social group? A social group that condones **** and child-sacrifice is as respectable as the Western one...? While it is true that we need to look at the whole culture and judge accordingly, to condone such montrosities is the mark of moral cowardice. Mind you, I would not call you a moral coward, but only spotlight the risk of such a position. We have an obligation to be fair and consider all factors, so yes, stepping back to fully view the issue is only right. Then what? Shall we then refuse to judge behavior based on an untenable system of pseudo-beliefs that condemns the act of judging?
Dempsey was an uneducated man of his era. He grew up in the wild west, not the corridors of some North Eastern university town. By his own admittance he cheered wildly as a boy for Jeffries against Johnson. While basically a fair and kind hearted guy , as top contender and champion he did what was in his own best interest when it came to the topic of fighting black fighters. I can assume from all that I have read that his perspective changed as times changed and he matured as a man. If someone today spoke with a 1918 Dempsey they might find him racist. However, I see no evidence he was anything less than a gentleman and that over time his perspective graduated to one of far more tolerance.
bodhi and Stonehands, are you two nerds vying for the title of Blue ****ing Power Ranger or something? This content is protected Shut the **** up!
How the **** is it you smug ****? "I write books so I'm oh so clevarrrr lololol" Go and **** yourself. He lived in a racist time, he did racist things like avoiding black fighters. Racist. Done.
I will gladly agree to him being a hoodwearing, cross burning, sieg heiling stormtrooper if I no longer have to scroll through pages of philosophical pedanticism.
Not at all but I think his promoter went strait for the fights that would generate the most income and this excluded black fighters who did not have a strong monetary following
Billy Miske, Bill Brennan and Tommy Gibbons were not close to the draws Wills would have been ... no way. Rickard , who knew from interracial bouts , was afraid of the consequences of a Wills win on society as well as the loss of his meal ticket. Any other revision is pure fabrication,. Wills was much bigger and had defeated much better opposition than Dempsey and no one knew it better than Kearns and Rickard. Wills was a very dangerous challenger , especially in the first half of Dempsey's reign before he became an old man.
