”You asserted an Absolute Principle which requires judgment. Judgment requires the exercise of opinion. You have not demonstrated that the principles, ideas, opinions and judgments that we use in our subjective ignorance are the opinions of an Ultimate Being. Nor why YOUR opinion of Ultimate Opinion should be considered as inviolate.”
This is the first time judgment has come up. I see your point if you are saying it fits presumptuously as part of the original assertion.
”You have not demonstrated that the principles, ideas, opinions and judgments that we use in our subjective ignorance are the opinions of an Ultimate Being. Nor why YOUR opinion of Ultimate Opinion should be considered as inviolate.”
I was not arguing to prove that it is based on the opinions of an ultimate being. I was arguing that rationally and philosophically the relative judgments we make are referenced to an ideal form. I offered one example (originally) of an ideal (absolute moral principle).
<<<"That makes sense but I wasn’t arguing for absolute principles of conduct but absolute moral ideas that may be used to guide conduct">>>
"Huh? The "principle" IS the idea--not the action.
Yes. I have been arguing all along that the idea is an abstract reference that exists, as you put it, in the ether. The judgments we make about our circumstance and the resulting action are in reference to the ideas. Action is based on principle but is not “the principle.”
<<<"This hatred is not an absolute moral principle."
”How do you know?”
"The moral principles that are fundamental to these cultures proscribe love, charity, forgiveness, tolerance, compassion, etc. but not hatred"
”I presume this was a typo??” >>>
No typo. But I have rethought this and see my error. Moral principles account for both the good and the bad. So it seems there would be absolute moral principles that account for the bad also. Hatred would come under the bad in most cases and in the dos and don’ts list, it would most likely come under the don’ts. I can think of exceptions like “hate injustice.” But I don’t see an absolute morality that condones hatred of other cultures.
”Anyway...ALL cultures have always venerated hatred and even cruelty against the proper enemy of their particular self interests. Millions of corpses attest to this fact.”
Agreed. But I don’t see any absolute morality in that. It exposes the history of struggle of humanity as it attempts to cohabitate the world but that is a separate issue. So far, I would say that we have failed to live idealic lives on this planet. My prediction is that this will continue to be the case. This is not our argument, is it?
”Furthermore...all those "virtuous" qualities have normally been preached and practiced within the limits of tribal interests...as they are today. There is not one decade since written history began in which this moral bias may not be shown to exist. And that includes yesterday and today in every country of the world, and in every family.”
This is true. Are you stating this as a complaint? If so, is your complaint that we fail to live virtuous lives? That those in quotes “virtuous” qualities that are preached are not actually virtuous, or that some of them are not? Is it that you don’t think we should allow virtue to bias our behavior?
<<<"I would say that “to oppose injustice” is an absolute moral principle" >>>
"Injustice" is a subjective opinion. Thus people oppose different things and embrace different things. That is why all Countries, all States, and all individuals have various opinions on abortion (for instance). What is "just" depends on the subjective judgment of individuals. Opposition to what one "believes" is injustice--LOL--takes place in the subjective and relative realm. <gg> "
I need to ask you to use the same philosophical frame work that I am using so that we can communicate clearly. I am separating the following: ideas, judgments about those ideas, and actions or attitudes that result from those judgments, and consequences of having acted.
I agree that in life experience all of these get enmeshed into what we call experience. However, my argument has been that an absolute moral principle exists, as you put it, in the ether. In our individual circumstance we are free to reference an idea, make a judgment as to how it applies to our particular situation, and act on that judgment. The consequences of which are not always under our control or even desirable.
So I agree with you that, ” What is "just" depends on the subjective judgment of individuals…. …with respect to individual circumstances. However we can come up with an ideal or absolute statement about justice vs injustice that is not tied to a particular set of circumstances. Once we tie the definition to a circumstance, you and I may apply our individual subjective judgments to the situation and find our selves disagreeing on whether or not the particular situation is an example of injustice.
”Is creation not an effort? Is knowing not an effort? Does altering what was to what is not require change? Does change not require energy?”
It seems logical that the force of energy exerts great effort in the creation of a universe. Most people just attribute the “absolute entitie’s” role as being an act of effortless will. Absolute Entity “wills it to be” and so it “is.” This is not our argument, btw. Way off on a tangent here.
”On what basis do you view an all-knowing entity as knowing without effort? This entity must do SOMETHING to do something...even if it merely squeezes Her eyes tight like in Star Trek. And if you have any opinion on these questions either for or against...can you justify them rather than simply assert them as Absolute?”
You have not justified your position here, the ” must do SOMETHING to do something...even if it merely squeezes Her eyes tight like in Star Trek. …This argument presupposes that an absolute entity is limited by the physical laws of the universe. The term “absolute entity” is incompatible with a requirement that it follow the physical laws of the universe that it created in order to create. Way, way off on a tangent.
<<<"I was arguing for the existence of ideals that we can all reference and individualize according to our circumstance.">>>
”Well Jewels??? We can all reference ideals, can't we? Everything we know tells us that these ideals have been developed culture to culture, country to country, century to century. Does it seem illogical to you that thinking beings will think? That rational beings will reason? That feeling beings will kill creatures from other species while formulating realistic ways of living in harmony with one another--at least 10% of the time? "
I have no problems with this paragraph. Nor do I find it particularly pertinent to the argument.
”You have no evidence that these contradictory ideals are not just what they appear to be--the fruits of thought applied from the subjective bias of all humans. You can make any claims you want, of course. But at least, if you supplied an argument, the millions or billions whom disagree with you could oppose your premises and not merely your assertions.”
I have no evidence to the contrary. In fact I agree with you on this.
<<<"A dilemma for the 500, Right? I think I missed your point.">>>
”Yes, I think you did. I was amusing myself with your expressed idea 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""! How subjective, relative, narrow, and selfish were your expressions of an intended example of Absolute Principle!”
Glad to be of service…
”All this while you fed your kids the dead flesh of creatures who wished to live and flourish fully as much as you did and whom held the same "Absolute" values in their biological imperative--LOL! Creatures who protect their young and who obviously suffer when their efforts fail...
We have agreed that I, or you, do not have a lock on what is beneficial to others in a wholistic view. You have demonstrated a narrow view of how one person could judge another person's position as being a violation of the principle I proposed. You did a good job of showing two things. 1) that you referenced the absolute principle. 2) you made a judgment about it that seems to fit the individualized circumstance you described.
<<<"So, it is only a matter of having consideration and having that reflecting on your attitude and conduct. It does not guarantee outcomes" >>>
”Seems to be a civilized value in our culture. So what does it have to do with proving or suggesting a Deity??
That is a good question. I have not been attempting to prove a Deity in this argument. That is not an argument that I would like to participate in.
”And of course I am capable of making wrong judgments. I think we all are. But the point is this: who determines whether it is right or wrong? The Catholic Church, my father, or YOU??”
I suppose we all have the ability to make such determinations, and we all would likely make them, if we have any vested level of influence; or if we just want to be nosey busy bodies. Up and to the point of your activity being labeled criminal, or requiring a vote or something, none of us has any particular right to act on our determinations of whether you be right or wrong. |
