
Oh, yes he did.  You may not agree with his premises, and what he proved may
not apply to "reality" (if such a thing exists), but he certainly proved
something.


Got it in one.  Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral system
to be better than another in every possible circumstance.  This does not,
however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than another
in a specific set of circumstances.  Nor does it preclude a set of moral
relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of
circumstances which they all agree they are in.


Eh?  Could you explain this?  Which "that statement" are you talking about?


I still don't quite see what you're trying to say.  I assume by "values" you
mean moral values, yes?  In which case, what do you mean by "real"?  What is
a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?


Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress?  It looks extremely finite
to me.


Sorry, but that's not so.  I can provide a justification for asserting that
the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace.  I
just can't provide a justification which works in all possible circumstances.

Similarly, I can provide a justification for asserting that bullets move
faster than snails.  That justification won't hold in all possible frames of
reference, but it will hold in almost all the frames of reference I am ever
likely to be in.


I don't think I agree with this.  My saying it *does* make it so *from my
point of view* and according to *my premises*, unless the argument is invalid.
It may indeed not make it so from your point of view, but I never claimed
that it did.  In fact, I don't even claim that you exist enough to have a
point of view.
