I still don't consider your latest answer responsive.
You're the one who made the statement that "I think I have to be the ultimate judge of right and wrong." I just asked whether you were the ultimate judge of your right and wrong, or everybody's.
By responding "[your question] has no answer because it is dependent upon the situation" you seem to be saying that sometimes you are the absolute judge of what's right and wrong just for yourself, and sometimes you're the ultimate judge of what's right and wrong for everybody.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I do want to be precise here, because understanding your initial comment is, IMO, critical. For example, the Taliban, to use another example than the traditional right wing Christian example, are sure that they are the ultimate judges of what's right and wrong for everybody. That, frankly, scares me.
OTOH, if one says he or she is the ultimate judge of what's right and wrong only for him- or her-self, I can deal with that better, but it raises questions about how society can deal with that. For example, are you the ultimate judge of whether it is right and wrong for you, to use an example which I hope is absurd, to take a gun, walk into a school, and start randomly shooting?
IMO, society can't function if every person, or even any person, takes on themselves to be the ultimate judge of what's right and wrong, even for themselves. If each person takes on themselves the role of deciding what's right and wrong, what happens to the law? We're back to the arguments of the Crito.
Frankly, your statement, however it's taken, scares me because I fear to be around anybody who makes themselves the ultimate arbiter of what's right and wrong. But it scares me a lot more if you claim this for all society, not just for yourself. |
