Finally. You do think I'm wrong and your right.
We're looking at things differently. I'm trying to analyze the matter and isolate the salient differences so that we can both understand both perspectives. I think that you are not understanding the point I'm trying to make, but I don't see anything wrong in that. We both just need to try harder. You are trying, aren't you? I think it would be wrong not to try.
Point one.
Your island does not exist, and would be impossible to create because as soon as you arrived it would contain at least one person who had "very definite ideas about right and wrong" you are simply importing your standards with you.
I'm not sure where you're going here. I was not talking about the island in the post you referenced. Nonetheless, yes, there would be one or more people on the island, perhaps everyone who had different ideas about right and wrong. I doubt that they would be very different, but they would be at least somewhat different.
No, the island does not exist. It's an abstraction intended to communicate a point about religious absolutes that I was trying to make. The island took on a life of its own and ended up confusing rather than illuminating the point. Too bad.
Point two.
You and your buddies make up your own rules, and by your own admission, they are not internally consistent, and hence illogical. I could have told you that
I did not admit any internal inconsistency. I can't imagine my having a philosophy that was internally inconsistent. I have too much systems analyst in my blood to not start twitching at the mere hint of internal inconsistency.
Point three.
I fail to see how just having big rules helps your case, since they are still rules. I thought this island didn't need rules?
Greg, I was talking about my personal approach to right and wrong.
And I assure you there would be no child molestation going on anywhere around me, island or no island. That's way outside my boundaries.
Karen |
