what about when there s complete disagreement was re after stuff there are actually some talk abortion related comments below believe it or not frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes in article w rusnews w w mantis co uk mathew mathew mant is co uk writes frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes specifically i d like to know what relativism concludes when two people grotesquely disagree is it a both are right b one of them is wrong and sometimes though perhaps rarely we have a pretty good idea who it is c one of them is wrong but we never have any information as to who so we make our best guess if we really must make a decision d the idea of a right moral judgement is meaningless implying that whether peace is better than war e g is a meaningless question and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer e something else a short positive assertion would be nice from whose point of view would you like to know what relativism concludes one of the people involved in the argument or some third person observing the arguers i ve just come from responding another of your posts where some pennies have dropped for me but it would clarify further if you would answer from the point of view of any disinterested observers perhaps an observer as likely to be in position a as in position b where a and b disagree in the future and have his or her conclusion now binding on them at that time well if our observer x is as likely to be in a s position as b s and if he agrees that both a and b are making appropriate observations and inferences regarding the situation then i would expect him to conclude that there is no right answer hopefully there would be some other factor which would allow him to make some judgement regarding which answer to accept if on the other hand he disagrees with the principles of either a or b i suspect he would make a decision in favour of the other one it is unfortunately the case that not all moral arguments have answers from all perspectives for instance i am completely unable to come to any conclusion regarding whether abortion should be allowed or not from my perspective in an ideal world all living things would have a right to life but in an ideal world women would have the absolute right to do what they like with their own bodies clearly there is no way to resolve in favour of both these principles therefore i agree with the compromise solution of allowing abortion up to a certain time after conception and deciding on the time based on various sometimes ill defined criteria this is also a sensible move i think because it lets people make their own decisions within reason and for what it s worth i am reasonably happy with current uk abortion law similarly the situation in what s left of yugoslavia is a horrible mess and i really can t see my way to any sort of conclusion there i don t even know enough to imagine what sort of compromise one might manage mathew
