”By defining Absolute Morality as "principles of conduct which are Absolute", I do not define it into actual existence.
From the very beginning of this discussion I have agreed with you that where conduct in the world is concerned we can agree that it is individual, subject to various subjective points of view, according to circumstances and definitely not absolute. Now that we have pages of discussion confirming that agreement over and over again you are insisting on defining an absolute as being subjective and conduct dependant. Then you conclude absolutes can not exist according to such a definition. Who are you arguing with?
Apparently you are unable to envision moral ideals. The concept of charity has not evolved through socialization and evolution of language. It is understood as “good will” by people the first time they encounter the concept today, just as it was thousands of years ago. Evidence? Well there is plenty of literature that makes that obvious. Language may change, the methods of applying charity definitely are unique according to the moment and circumstance but the absolute referent ideal does not change. That is what we have been discussing for days and days. Why you insist on discussing conduct that is never absolute, as though you were arguing with someone is confusing.
”The only difference between a moral principle and an Absolute moral principle would be the modifier. So if an Absolute Moral Principle is not an opinion, then neither is a moral principle an opinion. And that, of course, is patently absurd. Why you would say that the principle is Absolute but that the opinion which embodies and defines the principle is not?...that is a puzzle yet to be answered.
Because: 1) we have both agreed, many times now that an opinion is not absolute. 2) opinion does not embody moral absolutes. 3) you continue to add the term conduct and opinions about conduct to the definition of an absolute to bolster this argument. Your argument is not with me it is with your own definition, one that neither of us finds defensible.
When I was a little kid an old man told me that he has three principles to live by which were passed on to him by his father when he was a kid: 1) give an honest day’s work for whatever pay you have agreed upon. 2) keep your damn hands off’n other people’s stuff. 3) Protect what’s your’n with your life.
These are moral principles since they suggest a rightness of behavior. They are clearly this man’s opinion about what should be done while living his life and they are far from an absolute. Although I can see how one or more moral absolutes can be referenced to each of these three, I believe I could find lots of people who would have varying opinions about these three statements. They are fairly specific statements about how to conduct oneself in life.
Have “good will” (charity) is not a specific statement about conduct and sensible people do not think of the ideal “charity” as anything but good. It has not evolved to that. It is an absolute form that offers a reference for moral interpretation for our experience. I have already offered my understanding about how an application of charity in a specific circumstance could be looked at from various subjective, even opposing viewpoints. Application is quite different than ideal.
The difference between an absolute anything and a thing is the modifier. That makes them different not the same as your logic suggested. The evolution of agricultural activity describes many perspectives on what people eat for their food. The concept of “food” however is not an opinion it is an ideal. Human beings reference the concept “food” in a particular way to nurture health. They can use it for other stuff but it only qualifies as food if it is considered something that has this capacity. We can have lots of opinions about eating particular stuff and whether or not that stuff should be considered food but we always have this referent concept as a guide. The concept “food” is an absolute, “pork” is not.
”A principle is a rule. A moral principle is a rule for conduct.”
And an absolute moral principle is an absolute ideal…I’m using “absolute” and “ideal” redundantly here. Be nice is a rule; one that we all break. It is a moral rule and an ideal. You have to apply in a particular context of conduct to have it be less than absolute. Then it becomes a moral principle and a rule of conduct that is subjective (like the old man’s three rules).
If you continue to confuse virtues and vices with moral principles, and worse...to confuse the definitions and the characteristics of these virtues and vices with moral principles...then I see no hope for a reasonable discussion.
I have been very consistant with my line of reasoning, as I believe you have. If you continue to redefine my terminology and position in ways that even I find rediculous then you are correct, there is no hope for a reasonable discussion. I am convinced that you understand my position on the basis I have argued. You are now proposing a semantic arguement over the terminology I have laid out. I don't find that interesting so I guess we are done. |
