”Our moral judgments and principles would reflect our own particular biases, experiences, and subjective points of views.”
Agreed.
”As to transcending time and space, I don't know on what basis you make such an axiomatic claim. I can tell you that I have never met such a one....”
You have never met anyone, except in the present moment. You may have evidence that they existed beyond that moment of time, in the past or outside of the space in which you shared a moment with them. Your expectation is that they continue to exist beyond your meeting. But you have never met up with someone in the past nor have you ever met up with them in the future. Yet the claims of their continuity are no problem for you.
”nor (other than this comment from you) have I ever encountered such a claim from another human before…”
Oh, and they say you can’t teach an old dog anything. Well that remains to be seen.
”I don't know what you mean by (transcending) "specific experiences."
I was hoping I could just slip that in and you would get it.
”Do you mean getting beyond them psychologically?
No, not exaclty.
”Or do you mean erasing the information which preserves the record of events?
Huh, erasing? No, not exactly. I mean that you may see some “thing” (event, experience, opportunity, etc) in the short term as beneficial, but if you can look at the whole picture you might see it as harmful or visa versa. Do we ever see the “whole picture.” No, I don’t think we do.
Mystery and suspense movies are very entertaining because they take a split second event (usually a murder) and build a description of all of the things that led up to, impacted, transpired since, etc. and create a rich depiction of that moment. They try to capture a ‘whole picture’. We know, however, that it was just the information the author wanted to reveal to us. A whole person extends beyond momentary events, the biologically obvious benefits of food and shelter, or the obvious psycho-social needs of belonging and thriving in community.
”But I doubt that even you would argue that in the absence of a discreet organism when there is no longer a "self" but merely physical elements from the periodic table...that "self" interest manifests.”
Oh cool, do I smell a challenge in that statement? Certainly, I would agree that the bio-chemical components of one’s body do not qualify as a self (at least in the whole sense of the word), especially when the body is no longer a living entity. We are referring to a human self, not nuts, bolts and t’maters. The claim that you seem to be making here is that a human’s self interests are composed of things related only to that human’s biology and to the extent to which that biology is viable.
We don’t typically associate human self with inanimate objects, even if they once represented a human being (like a corpse or its decomposed elements). Some people may argue that taking care of the remains is in the interests of the dearly departed but I don’t think either of us are arguing that point. There is a wide open door of belief, that the human self and self-interests exists as a biological enmeshment (physical, mental, psychological, spiritual). The term “soul” is a convenient descriptor that is commonly coined when referencing the essential human self that exists regardless of the condition of the various enmeshed parts. It is especially suitable for inclusion in a discussion around “absolute morality.”
”AGAIN..."A concern for ones own advantage or well being demonstrates a clear bias and is obviously subjective. Asserting that it is not will not further your argument.”
You are inserting the word “advantage” and associating it as a synonym to the term “well-being.” My original definition of an absolute moral principle did not contain this qualifier. This would definitely change the meaning of the definition and make the two terms I used incompatible.
<<<… have a positive regard for one’s well-being and the well being of others as an absolute moral that we can use to determine the goodness/badness or neutrality of conduct>>>
The “regard” is equal in reference to self and others. Having a concern for one’s advantage is a different matter and implies an adversarial relationship.
”If morality is based on physical laws, like the laws of motion, and if it exists irrerspective of the opinions of people, then it is Objective and Absolute. If it derives from the opinions of people then it is NOT Absolute. It may indeed be sensible and logically constructed...but it is based on subjectivity and fallibility.”
I did not say that morality is based on physical laws, nor to I believe it to be. Otherwise, I agree with that paragraph.
”Your implication that humans are (perhaps) ultimately beyond space and time, Deities, or whatever...are not argumentative--they are blanket assertions of the most extraordinary and most unjustified kind. If you wish to assert that our diverse and contradictory opinions are Absolute--and based on the fact that WE are Absolute...then please state it openly and divulge your evidence. If you believe our moral opinions are based on an idea pattern established in the ether of "ideas" by an Absolute Entity (or existing without cause) then please state THAT.”
My statements are that, 1) Humans exist in an enmeshed form as I described in one of the paragraphs above. 2) Using your words, I believe our moral opinions are based on an idea pattern established in the ether of "ideas" by an Absolute Entity.
<<<"If you approach the game in a healthy manner with regard for your own well being and the well being of your opponent (me), then your outlook would be to expose the weaknesses in my strategy">>>
Most people that I have met know about good sportsmanship. Of course on the bottom level of good sportsmanship we are only referring to polite conduct on the playing field. On a higher level though we are referring to an attitude in which all who participate benefit and are enriched through participation. Even in nature we have learned the lessons of mutual benefit when, for example, the wolves improve the health of the caribou herds through their predation. In this case, nature forces the regard for mutual well being. I don’t have a clue what wolves are thinking, except that they are hungry and dinner is on the hoof.
”A healthy manner in whose opinion?? Why should I value your well being equivalent to mine? Even if I did, it would only reflect my subjective value.”
As I have described the game is kept civil, each player benefits, and the sport itself is strengthened by having stronger participants.
”And how would such nonsense work in practice. We both love a girl but she loves me and not you. Am I to encourage her to go to you....hurting her AND me?? Am I to encourage her to marry me...hurting You?? If people did not have self interest and if they did not regard and value one another differently then we would not have individualized love and devotion and fidelity. We have these things because we are NOT somebody else...we are ourselves.
The chess example I gave was a practical example but you are asking about a non-game type. There is a very limited amount of information here to apply the principle. If you love the girl and she loves you, how would it be an application of having a positive regard for self and others to encourage her to go to me. She would be confused and unhappy by your suggestion. If she took your advice, she might be forever spiteful toward me for whatever I did to convince you to turn her out. I would have a miserable relationship with someone who was in love with another and you would be suffering from a loss. How is that having a positive regard for your own well being, or the well being of other people? You would simply be giving me something that I want but would likely result in misery.
Of course, if you are in love with one another, then you probably believe the best thing for the two of you to do would be to get married and the worst thing for all concerned would be to encourage her to go to me. You would likely act accordingly and if you are involved with me at all, you would demonstrate a positive regard for my well being in your efforts to help me to accept this situation as in everyone’s best interests. |
