I think HAC's got a great post

here. I agree with her rather strongly, but the commenters don't. I think it's too late to get in on the discussion there, really, but I find myself wondering how a radical relativist expects to convince anybody of a philosophy based on nothing. I'd say that human knowledge develops over time, though there are no guarantees that we'll always head in the right direction. I think "we" hit it pretty well with Natural Law Theory, and the only argument against it that I see is that it has religious origins.

It is a premise, ladies and gentlemen, that there is no god. Occam's Razor may lead you to the conclusion that science hasn't proven the God Theory, and therefore no reason to blindly accept it, let alone insist on it, but the religiosity of the originators of Natural Law Theory doesn't qualify as a reason to toss it out. That would be an ad hominem argument.

The bunch of relativists rabble-rousing over there seems to be happy with the notion that cultures can make any rules they want and they pull out examples from history showing that all these cultures have worked out just fine. Interesting that none have been found without strong religious beliefs. You can argue that Taoism and Confucianism are godless, I suppose, but they seldom exist without an admixture of some variety of Buddhism.

They seem to be arguing that, since NLT became generally accepted Utopia didn't immediately appear, therefore NLT is wrong.

The brain wants food. I'll be happy to discuss this further, if anybody cares. Assuming I find sustenance.
****
BTW, completely off the subject, I must be doubling the amount of water in those buckets we were pressing yesterday. They weren't that big. The guy I asked must have meant that the total amount of water was 3 gallons, not 3/bucket. That would make the weight about 50 lbs. with the yoke and buckets included. I was glad to discover how comfortable those yokes are. I'll have to make one.