”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—..."
I liked your earlier terminology better. An “Absolute Entity” does not ring up visions of thunderbolt wielding giants like Supernatural Being does. But it is not a big deal for me.
One whose "ideas" are accessible to your seeking (although you later deny that this Being has "ideas").
I am not sure what the statement in parenthesis is referring to but I don’t think I agree with it.
”The fact remains, however, that you offer no cogent argument for your conclusions, but merely state them.
The argument is that absolute moral principles exist and are recognizable as darkness and day is recognizable without proving it beyond the observation that it is there.
”But you haven't shown that any principle used by humans was invented or reflects some "opinion" of an Absolute Being.”
I was not given this task nor does it seem necessary for the argument.
”Nobody disagrees with you that certain principles of conduct offer good direction for behavior in those people whom agree with it.
That makes sense but I wasn’t arguing for absolute principles of conduct but absolute moral ideas that may be used to guide conduct.
”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.
This hatred is not an absolute moral principle. The moral principles that are fundamental to these cultures proscribe love, charity, forgiveness, tolerance, compassion, etc. but not hatred. There are some moral principles that guide humans to oppose some things including some kinds of conduct. I would say that “to oppose injustice” is an absolute moral principle. As I stated earlier, the existence of an absolute moral principle does not guarantee perfect conduct. We may use faulty reasoning when attempting to apply a moral principle. Why do these individuals come to hate one another? They certainly should speak for themselves but terms like extremism, hypocrisy, compulsion, corruption, etc. come to mind.
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?
I hesitated on your earlier statement because you asked if an “Absolute Entity” would use thought to determine what an absolute idea is. The way you stated the question implied that such an entity would have to struggle for understanding. I would view an “all knowing” entity as being capable of knowing at the least without effort.
”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??
We are not arguing whether or not all ideas are absolutely good or absolutely bad. We may (and often do) err in our determination of which conduct is in line with absolute moral principles. We currently have confidence that sacrificing infants is a bad idea. In history sacrificing infants has had several venues (lets try not to get side tracked). Some people are starting to question the goodness or badness of infanticide in modern culture. I would say that infanticide for the sake of world population control, is sacrificing infants to an environmental deity. Seems like a bad idea to me. Likewise regarding maternal convenience.
I think your question is more along the lines of, “who do we believe?” regarding absolute moral rights and wrongs. The above is a good example of why that question is difficult. Most of us would agree that there are times when making a sacrifice is a good thing. The application is what you and I are questioning, not the idea.
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.
It is true that I may never know what is beneficial to another since I am not able to see the whole picture. What they think, feel, and value may or may not have a lot to do with it. The principle I proposed was to have a “regard” for their well-being. It was not to “guarantee my attitude or behavior toward them will be good for them.”
Their values are NOT your values, their thoughts are not your thoughts, and their "moral principles" are NOT YOUR moral principles.
This is all true but again is not what I was arguing. I was arguing for the existence of ideals that we can all reference and individualize according to our circumstance.
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.
A dilemma for the 500, Right? I think I missed your point.
”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...
I would say that it takes under consideration of what constitutes a benefit to others. However, as you have pointed out we are not 100% in determining benefit to others. So, it is only a matter of having consideration and having that reflecting on your attitude and conduct. It does not guarantee outcomes.
”LOL! Unless EVERY other person in the world AGREED with MY "JUDGMENT"
Well I can understand your overreaction here. By everyone’s best interest, I was thinking only of everyone involved (the three of us). You are certainly capable of making that kind of judgment (rightly or wrongly) and acting on it. However, there is no reason at all for entering into a “marriage” unless you are considering how your bond effects the community of “others” at large. Whether or not I (or every person in the world) agrees with your judgment of the situation has nothing to do with whether or not you are acting with regard to your own well being and what you consider to be the well being of others. The moral gives direction to the decision maker and carries no dependency on the agreement of others.
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...
ditto |
