"This is the first time judgment has come up"
In my opinion it was a necessary and assumed premise from the beginning. Moral opinions judge between good and bad. Why would moral opinions be embedded in the tapestry of the universe if nobody and assessed and judged?
"I was arguing that rationally and philosophically the relative judgments we make are referenced to an ideal form has been a necessary and understood premise all along."
This is getting old: Again...you do not prove the existence of am ideal form by merely asserting it. You have simply been begging the question. On what basis should a moral principle enunciated by you or by anybody else be considered as deriving from an ideal form? Is it coherent? Human opinions may exhibit coherency. Is it functional and sensible? Human opinions may be functional and sensible. What does it have which proves (or even suggests) perfection, permanence, and extrahuman origin?
"But I don’t see an absolute morality that condones hatred of other cultures."
Well, if you know anything about history or current affairs you would be aware that cultures, tribes, clans, groups, families, and individuals have hated one another since time immemorial. Certainly religious books have sometimes made genocide out to be both good and just. So there are all sorts of conflicting ethics which guide the behaviour of different groups.
I posted a link earlier to some Aztec ideas of right and wrong. It was a common practice to cut out hearts to sacrifice to innumerable Gods. It is not this cruelty considered as rightful conduct, however, which is most notable. Most notable is that when possible they used the hearts of prisoners from other tribes. They had a moral principle that it was just and good to hate those not their own...and to kill them in the most vicious manner.
They could say that their principle came fron an ideal form...that the idea that it was good and just to hate and sacrifice your enemy was an ideal idea embedded in the fabric of the universe. But I personally have neither more nor less reason to believe their assertion than I do your own.
"But I don’t see any absolute morality in that"
Your naked belief does not create the fact of absolute morality nor the absence thereof. It is merely your opinion, and so long as you continue to make it without argument it continues to be unsupported opinion.
"Are you stating this as a complaint?"
No, of course not. I thought the response was obvious. It was to restate that all the tribes and people who claimed moral absolutes often had entirely contradictory moral "principles" such as whom it was and was not "good" to kill, sacrifice, rape, and so forth.
"However, my argument has been that an absolute moral principle exists, as you put it, in the ether"
I know you have said that but you have made no argument for it. At the most, you may have argued that "ABC" is in my opinion a decent principle for people to live by. Therefore, because I believe that "ABC" is Absolutely good (ergo, not invented by humans but pre-existing in a universal slop-pail of ideas--good, bad, and indifferent) therefore "ABC" must be good and absolute or I would not have believed it to be so...and so on in that endless circle of belief.
This is rather scary as you would know then just which conduct constitutes good and bad behaviour and you would act accordingly within your power...
Somehow it all sounds rather familiar...
"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"
Fine. Give me a sentence which uses the word justice and which is an ought, or an ought not...or whichever way you wish to phrase it. Then tell me why I should believe that that principle did not come from your experience and your assessments of values and such.
"This is not our argument, btw"
Well, sure it is. If you are going to talk about Absolute ideas being "enmeshed" in the universe then you need to know a little bit about how the universe was constructed and by what manner of Being.
"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."
It may not be necessary, but it is certainly not incompatible. Furthermore, it is you who attempt to connect this Being to logic. You have just mentioned that it "created". Now creating is doing something, not nothing. Presumably (as you and I have never yet found an idea to issue from other than a sentient creature) these moral ideas enmeshed in the fabric of the universe most probably issued from the mind of a sentient creature. I mean, one thinks of glove and one thinks of hand, one sees hat and thinks of head...and so forth.
"You did a good job of showing two things. 1) that you referenced the absolute principle."
No, I referenced principles and at times I referenced principles which you claim were enmeshed in the universe somehow or other. I have never referenced an Absolute Principle other than as an idea to pursue an argument.
Naturally, I cannot prove a negative, but I regard it as extremely unlikely that there could exist Absolute Morality. I find it even more unlikely that a Deity would construct such a system, nor do I believe it logical that such an Absolute could exist. So long as people are separate and subjective parts the exhortation to "do good" will always be comprehended, interpreted, and acted from a point of view. Thus "good" will always have many meanings and many acts, from wiping out entire tribes down to the last breathing infant, to flying planes into buildings full of inocent people, to jumping into the sea so the last water in the lifeboat can go to a loved one.
"I have not been attempting to prove a Deity in this argument"
You may not be aware of it but it is extremely difficult to envision the existence of perfect ideas uncoupled from notions of judgment, intent and purpose. Again...glove goes with hand, etc.
One thing we know reasonably sure: People think, judge, and form principles...
"I suppose we all have the ability to make such determinations"
So the question is: when we all disagree, and we all claim that our determinations derive from Absolute Principles...which one of us is right? |
