|
|
 Originally Posted by Renton
Morals are not absolute. They belong to individuals, and my morality is different from Steve's, Ian's, or Becky's morality. Some people think it is immoral for people in Indonesia to work for 50 cents an hour making products to be sold to Americans at Wal-mart. The clever observer however understands that those people employed for 50 cents an hour might be sleeping on the sidewalk if it weren't for the burgeoning export economy of Indonesia that enables them to have that 50 cent per hour job.
This isn't a particularly good argument for moral relativism. This is pretty much the exact logical equivalent of saying that poker eV is subjective because if you post a hand in the BC than different people will have different opinions on how to play the hand. The fact that there are different moral compasses doesn't even come close to proving that morality is relative.
Anyway, morality is an insanely complicated discussion, so I will grant you that a democratic political system is going to be quite error-prone if it enforces overly-specific moralizing (as a basic example: we as a political society hold "murder is bad" as a generalizing principle even though most people will agree that there are at least some scenarios where killing someone else is okay; we just don't trust a government with enforcing these rare nuances of the situation).
I think it's highly debatable that this argument and human-rights-based labor arguments fall under this overly nuanced purview, but we'll see if I feel like arguing this point after thinking on it for a bit.
|
Reply With Quote
