Rethinking Moral Relativism - NYTimes.com

Stanley Fish's "Stone" essay yesterday asked if philosophy matters. Some of us wonder if Fish matters, and why he's been granted such a bully pulpit. The casual bandying of muddy claims (pro and con) about "moral absolutes" is a common undergraduate error, but it usually doesn't enjoy so prominent and prestigious a public forum.

But, I do agree with him that the term "absolute" generally sheds little light.

“[W]hen we are in a muddle about what the answer to a hard moral question is, we are in a muddle about what the absolutely correct answer is.”   [Fish asks:] Why “absolutely”? Isn’t “correct” good enough?

It is. Some philosophers don't get that, and lots of dogmatic non-philosophers don't get it.  But that's no reason to tar "philosophy" per se, regarded as an activity, as an orientation to the world, or even as a profession, with the charge of irrelevance. Nothing could possibly be more relevant to the search for "correct" answers and questions.

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way"

Excessive intellectualism in July? Not much threat of that, around here. What we did instead of thinking too much on a Sunday afternoon in Metropolis, IL yesterday: