"I freely admitted and still do that my self-interest would be a primary driver in the decision and that it would be based in part on my subjective analysis and judgement of the situation."
But you have not shown anything other than self interest and reference to your personal value principles as a basis for action.
"You would like to lay a judgement on me that does not apply. I don't know why you go to that strategy in every discussion we have. Whatever..."
No, I would not.
"There is no way that I would allow any outsider or external doctine to usurp my responsibility over this situation. That is an unwarranted and unproductive tag to place on my side of the argument"
I placed no tag on you. You have insisted that you a relativist who nevertheless believes in Absolutism. I find that both amusing and evasive.
"If you insist on continually going there, then you demonstrate lack of good faith in this discussion"
In spite of what appears to me to be contradictory assertions on your part, I think you have argued well until now. So please do not introduce the wounded wing syndrome into this discussion. There is no blood on you through my efforts. I discuss only your words, not your character. It is possible for either of us to misinterpret. I think that you have misinterpreted something, but in any case there is a record of everything which has been said which may be placed under honest scrutiny...
"I do see the moral absolutes as being external (as in the sound in the forest whether we are there to hear it or not)."
Tell me how reference to a Zen Koan is supposed to support your position?
"However, we are bound to operate in the physical realm by using our ability to analyze situations and determine either subjectively or objectively a best course of action...based on some principle that we believe supports our best interests"
Once again you give an admirable account of moral relativism. Everything you have said to me about you, about others, and about humanity indicates your belief that individuals and communities choose values and principles based on very subjective and variable criteria. However, you imply that there is some immutable principle which codifies absolutely perfect conduct in all the infinite situations which may be present in human life. This assertion is extreme and has been presented writ large without even the attempt at justification.
If we temporarily set aside the improbable nature of this claim, we are still left with certain problems: All evidentiary data points to moral relativism, and the Law of Parsimony allows us to form a sufficient judgment on the question based on all the available information. Now you wish to alter the judgment, but you do not offer any additional information apart from your assertion that you BELIEVE IT TO BE SUCH AND SUCH LIKE A TREE THAT MAKES A NOISE IN THE WOODS.
How am I to counter your assertions that your moral relativism is illusionary? How am I to argue against blanket assertions of "belief" where no information and no examples or instances are given?? You have argued nothing but moral relativism, but you are pleased to addend that the evidentiary data is subsumed beneath your secret knowledge of Moral Absolutes.
It would be wonderful if you would share the basis of your secret knowledge...and it would be gratifying if you would leave a tablet showing definitive moral commandments which do not involve subjective assessment, evaluation, and judgment on the part of us Beings whom think, feel, and decide. |
