Moral Relativism and Rigid Thinking

This is worth your 10 minutes, even if you aren't particularly interested in Rep Todd Akin's fatal "legitimate rape" SNAFU or what some snark-monster blogger for the Economist thinks about it. Kohen's larger point--his really, really important point--is that moral relativism (and I'd expand that to say most relativism) tends to be a very rigid stance masquerading as a very fluid and all-embracing pan-acceptance. Kohen implicitly--enticingly--draws into question whether one can actually *build* any argument on a foundation of complete Relativism, which after all would have to accept the validity of any counter argument (on the basis of, hey, m'man, if that's how things look from where you're standing, then that's all good, bro).

(That I'm more often than not guilty of being just such a bro should go without saying, and that I'm worried that I do so out of a sort of moral laziness rather than conviction--well, that's all baked in the cake, too.)

Running Chicken: Rigid Thinking

Except Todd Akin’s ideas, which are — in Steinglass’ words — “monstrosities.” What makes them monstrosities? Well, Steinglass doesn’t agree with them. And he doesn’t agree, apparently, because he thinks they are the products of absolutist thinking. I also happen to disagree with Akin’s ideas. But I could come up with a perfectly good absolutist reason for my disagreement [see below] rather than a wishy-washy non-argument that says, “Everyone’s beliefs are as good as everyone else’s because there’s no single truth out there … except for the people with whom I disagree; those people are just flat-out wrong.”