-----Original Message----- From: Sascha Noyes [mailto:sascha@pantropy.net] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:51 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The integrity of Wikipedia
On Thursday 12 February 2004 11:41 am, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
There is a significant difference between NPOV and "moral relativism",
Actually there isn't.
Moral relativism says that there are no values.
No it doesn't. Moral relativism says that there are no _absolute_ values. Merely that different (and often broadly overlapping) sets of values are held by different groups/in different times. Another important aspect of moral relativism is the origin of the values in groups. Moral relativist posit that the values of a group are significantly influenced by factors such as tradition, power-structure.
NPOV does not say this, but as a practical matter insists that no article be used to take a stand endorsing or opposing any values.
Not endorsing or opposing any values, because they are not absolute, is the fundamentalist moral relativist position.
Best, Sascha Noyes
On Thursday 12 February 2004 18:59, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Sascha Noyes [mailto:sascha@pantropy.net] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:51 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The integrity of Wikipedia
On Thursday 12 February 2004 11:41 am, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
There is a significant difference between NPOV and "moral relativism",
Actually there isn't.
NPOV does not say this, but as a practical matter insists that no article be used to take a stand endorsing or opposing any values.
Not endorsing or opposing any values, because they are not absolute, is the fundamentalist moral relativist position.
Well, there is a difference between believing that there are no absolute values and believing that there might be absolute values, but that we cannot know which values are absolute.
I agree that in practice, both views may have same results.