Since I'd misunderstood what meta-ethical moral relativism meant (I had thought it meant that there is an objectively right or wrong answer but we don't/can't know what it is), much of what followed isn't relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
YOU need to present a coherent argument for the claim you are making, and that is what we are trying to get you to do.
I appreciate your constructive efforts. I'm gonna take a time out and have a think about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
Maybe it would be helpful at this point if you gave us an idea of what metric you use to decide if a proposition is indisputable or not. For example, Little Billy answers on his test that 4 x 5 = 25. Does this mean that 4 x 5 = 20 is disputed?
On this issue, I thought that mathematical truths were Necessary and as I said in my reply to LZ, this makes me wonder if the fact that a truth can be Necessary or Contingent is a factor here. However, I know very little about this and although I'm not familiar with it at this point I'm aware that there exists an argument for why God is a Necessary truth and so I'm not willing to venture into these waters just yet.
I've made multiple (failed) attempts to describe my 'metric' and I'm still trying to figure out how to define and label what I feel shouldn't be taught to children as indisputable truths. Tbc.
