very interesting rms q&a on /. also very interesting commentary. in response to rms’s statement about his non-belief in relativism, i think there’s an assumption that when people have arguments, that they are usually arguing about the same thing in the first place (which is rare). ethical pluralism is based i think on the acknowledgement of different base frameworks (call them what you will: worldviews, paradigmatic structures, etc.) which may be incommensurable (and ambiguous), and not just based one side being more right than any other.
hmm, def. deserves more thought than i can give it at this time. maybe later on in the week when i am not procrastinating on a paper.