Let us consider what we agree on: We both agree that people may hold principles; we agree that people and societies have always regulated behavior between one another through rules of conduct...which may be referred to as morals. We also agree that morals may be in the form of principles. But in general, when you and I are referring to "moral principle", and discussing whether it is an invention of humans, or whether it is discovered by humans--we are referring to notions of right and wrong which have general acceptance within any particular social group or community.
These moral principles might have to do with what sort of clothing women or men ought to wear, how and where to pray, how to treat an elder of your community or tribe, the rules for engaging in acceptable (moral) sex, the acceptable methods of expressing affection, and in general how to think and act rightly.
I believe we have also agreed that there is very discernable difference of opinion historically and geographically on all questions of conduct and behaviour. These differences run from the extreme examples of people who believe it moral to sacrifice infants in appropriate rituals to particular Absolute Entities which they believe in...to more subtle differences of how to wear ones hair or beard.
We have agreed that humans practice a subjective morality and honour subjective moral principles because they have a fallible nature--and because their interests are necessarily constrained by their point of view which is subjective and relative. I believe that we agree on all these things and I believe I can dig up your words to support agreement on each of these things.
So where is our disagreement? As far as I can tell, it is simply that you believe in some entity who or which has established (or exemplifies) Absolute Principles of conduct for mortal beings to follow. You appear to believe this to be the case based on the notion that some of the moral principles that both you and I share as guides to right conduct actually originate from a Supernatural Being--One whose "ideas" are accessible to your seeking (although you later deny that this Being has "ideas").
The fact remains, however, that you offer no cogent argument for your conclusions, but merely state them. The one argument you do offer (that you think an Absolute entity would be capable of having an impartial and non-subjective "regard" for all mortals) is not an article of fact but one of faith. I cannot discuss with you the reasonableness of your faith as it relates to facts, because at the point where axioms of faith form the basis of argument...at that point argument by fact must reach her end.
"Having the absolute moral principle does not provide a default mechanism for absolute good conduct, as far as I know. It simply offers direction."
But you haven't shown that any primciple used by humans was invented or reflects some "opinion" of an Absolute Being. Nobody disagrees with you that certain principles of conduct offer good direction for behaviour in those people whom agree with it. But a principle is a thought represented by some form of language. You have not shown that your thoughts are the thoughts of some Creator. And if they are...then why do they differ from the thoughts of other (presumably) created beings? Why do so many Arabs and Jews hate each other? Why do so many Christians and Muslims hate each other. Many of them claim it is on the basis of Divine and Absolute moral principles. Your claim is of the same nature, although I respect the fact that the particulars of your "Absolute" moral principles are much more benign...
"I am not sure I can answer this question. It is confusing to me. It seems to put me in the position of answering for an “Absolute Entity.”"
What are you? Who do you answer for? Are your opinions subjective and relative, or do you know Absolute ideas and thoughts?
"My understanding of what you meant by an Absolute Entity would be the “All Knowing” kind. In this case thought as we use the process would not be an exact fit"
What would be an exact fit for the "All Knowing" kind? Can you know something without having knowledge? Can you have knowledge without awareness, perception, and understanding? What makes you think it is not a fit? On what basis do you believe that this Entity does not think, yet has knowledge?
"Good question. I don’t know how falsehood and imperfections work except that they are troublesome to deal with."
My point was not the discomfort you feel in dealing with imperfection. My point was that if you believe that people simply "discover" pre-existing Absolute ideas, then how do we (as fallible creatures) decide whether sacrificing infants to glorify a deity is one of the Absolutely GOOD or one of the Absolutely BAD ideas??
"I am not always a good judge of what is to be ultimately beneficial for others."
Not surprising...according to your previous posts you are not even a good judge of what is ultimately beneficial to yourself.
There is a biological imperative in creatures to hold on to existence at most costs. There is also an imperative to avoid suffering. Many rational people will place the cessation of chronic suffering ahead of existence as their personal subjective "moral" principle. Others would not. What should be obvious to you, but appears not to be, is that people own their own ideas and thoughts and are responsible for them. Thoughts do not exist in flour mills, or creeks, or whiskey bottles. They exist only in brains. Dead brains can neither create nor process thoughts. This should be obvious to you.
You can never know what is beneficial to another (other than in a superficial sense), because you can never entirely understand what they think and feel and VALUE. Their values are NOT your values, their thoughts are not your thoughts, and their "moral principles" are NOT YOUR moral principles.
"I am convinced, for example, that raising my children in a loving environment with the simple message that being a family means, in part, taking care of one another, and that this results in benefits to all concerned in the long run"
Not only do I and many others agree with you on this, but so do most of the animals we kill and eat to feed our kids. Unfortunately, if there is one row of corn and 500 children...some will not eat corn.
"Since self interest may be looked at from such distinctly different and incompatible views, it should not be the focus of what constitutes a positive regard for well being of self and others"
But it must be because a "positive regard" either means nothing and is merely an empty phrase, or it takes under consideration of what constitutes a benefit to others. This, of course, is entirely subjective and may only be ascertained after many years of Freudian therapy...
"An Abbot?"
That is correct.
"I simply stated that the moral is to have a positive regard for your own well-being and the well being of others."
That is nice--a good principle, IMO--at least so long as the other defines what their well being is and that such well being does not conflict with selfish interests such as love for family and such. As you said earlier, it is YOUR principle and YOUR thought and you do not presume to speak for an Absolute Entity.
"If, in your judgment, it is clearly in everyone’s best interest for you to marry the girl, then that is what you should do with regard to your well being and hers."
LOL! Unless EVERY other person in the world AGREED with MY "JUDGMENT"...then it would clearly NOT be in everyone's best interests! MY judgment is simply a biased point of view. How could MY judgment relate factually to the best interests of EVERYBODY else! I should be lucky if it should correspond in a vague manner with my own "best interest". It should be obvious that the "best interests" of everyone else are not a singularity but a plurality! I generally only consider the best interests of others where I have an emotional investment--and then only imperfectly and subjectively... |
