zlacker

Right. Value pluralism says that's not true. That you can (and do) hold many. And that we make compromises between our different values all day long every day -- within ourselves.

>>crazyg+(OP)
By the original commenter's definition, value pluralism involves having zero, not many, core principles that are absolute.

"Absolute" is the key word.

>>GavinM+G
Is the comment meaningful if there's nobody that it describes?

>>GavinM+G
Thank you, that helped. "You can raise at most one principle to absolute priority."

>>8note+F1
There certainly exist people who in their last moments sacrifice everything for something greater than themselves. If that's not an absolute sacrifice then no, there probably isn't.

But in the small we are always compromising on some things in favor of others. A principle can be upheld at great cost until it finally gives way. One principle can crumble away in favor of others very suddenly.

>>crazyg+(OP)
Then those values are not truly absolute by definition if they are being compromised on if absolute is to be held to mean what it is conventionally held to mean when used in the context of values. That definition of being inviolable.

>>8note+F1
Sure, given that the point is merely to respond to those who claim many absolute allegiances.