[Buddha-l] Buddha's Meditation

[Dan Lusthaus]

> The a priori assumption I was referring to was the claim that universalism 
> (as you called it, thereby introducing a topic quite different from the 
> one I was explicitly talking about, which was pluralism) and relativism 
> are intrinsically immoral. That claim is empirically false.

Not at all. On the contrary if history and plain observation count as 
empirical evidence, then the evidence goes overwhelmingly in the other 
direction. From this point on you argue in a circle.

>The only way one could sincerely make such a claim would be to make it on 
>an a priori level and to define universalism, relativism and morality in a 
>question-begging way such that your claim becomes true by your 
>idiosyncratic definitions.

Empiricism requires evidence, not circular assertion.

As I've already pointed out, the initial example of the shallow holes and 
deep hole assumes universalism in the sense I described. It becomes a 
meaningless analogy otherwise.

Dan