could a fixed moral order be a clue that there is fixed moral order giver?
"If there were one, consistent over time and place, it might."
There is, and it does.
Try to think of a society where there are completely opposite moral notions to ours. You will look long and hard to find them. The fact is that all societies have very similar notions of what constitutes right and wrong. You can say these have evolved, but I see no hard evidence to that effect. Of course the application of base moral principals can and does vary from culture to culture, but the underlying principals have always been the same. Pointing to unfounded evolutionary theories in the biological realm to validate other evolutionary theories about morality simply compounds error after error. Where is the hard evidence that "man" has ever been anything but man? I find your characterization of "Yates" as A
"anomalous", a little odd, as it is she that is acting consistent with evolution, and you who are acting in opposition to it. Do we call the bear who kills his own cubs, in order to bring the female into breading, EVIL????? No! Why do we? Or rather, why do you, since I can be completely consistent in denouncing such behavior as evil.
The "golden rule" to use a religious phrase, is not simply pragmatic, it is "right". The very concept of justice and injustice assumes that an ultimate standard of morality, really does exist. Not just in some book, whether secular or religious, but in the real world where people live. We are hard wired for it, yet we all fail to live up to even the minimal standards we expect from others. Yates is but an extreme example of our inability to act in a manner consistent to what we "know" in our heart of hearts to be TRUE.
Have to cut this short . My wife needs me.
Catch you later.
Greg |
