I think the summary of your thoughts in this area was well stated, and it doesn't appear to contain any obvious internal inconsistencies.
I am quite happy to hear that ;-)
ME- The fallacy generally made in examining such reductio ad absurdum scenarios is in begging the question of absolute morality.
YOU- "I would think that any moral arguments based on absolute or relative morality would be begging the question of either absolute or relative morality"
_____________
My point was that acting as the observer (God), in the scenario of last man/woman, assumes the position which the absolutist seeks to prove, and thus gainsays any point to the exercise.
The relativist position is a default position which requires no (additional) proof, because it alone is evidenced in our empiricist experience. The secular world is a relativistic world. This is undeniable. The assertion that it may be more than that, as in having absolutist "rules" of morality, requires a belief in a Supreme and perfect authority. There is no evidence for such an authority in either philosophy or theology.
If one could find evidence of absolute values, one could then infer the existence of such an authority; but human values and rules are distinctly human, and implicitly relativistic. The law of parsimony suggests the benefits of accepting the obvious evidence before us; at least until such time as something beyond conjecture, and supportive of assertions of naked belief--are available to challenge our senses and our thoughts.
People decide what is good or evil. They don't discover it. They choose it. And they choose in wildly different and conflicting ways, regardless of whether or not they attribute their "values" to a supernatural entity or otherwise.
Consensus of belief does sometimes exist in regard to specific acts after they have been committed, analyzed, interpreted, and judged. But a consensus of reason, in particular instances, is a tribute to reason--and a celebration of the commonality which informs the self interest of our collective species.
Such a consensus suggests nothing about the supernatural. |
