"That was at least a better effort, however you are still trying to shift the emphasis away from yourself and onto my views"
I suppose you can never know how ridiculous that remark was. Let us limit it to the latter half and simply remark as to how meaningless it is.
"I see, so you oppose religious and political tyranny in others but it's O.K. for you to impose your own form of political/a-religious tyranny on whoever you want?"
What in the Hell is the matter with you? How does it follow that my support of force against sovereign nations in certain circumstances entails a belief that political or religious tyranny is OK by me? Your comments are becoming absurd. Nor is this discussion about assessing MY moral code. Family, friends, and society may judge my behavior. It is not for you to deflect the discussion into personal attack.
"You're just arbitrarily asserting "human needs" are the basis for morality without first establishing why others should be compelled to honor them."
I would like to help you with this. You seem to be struggling to make the distinction between behavior and consequence. Would the analogy of supply and demand help? You see, Greg, it does not matter that no “creator” is behind either plenitude or suffering…supply and demand responds to HUMAN needs and HUMAN reasons. Likewise in the moral arena…human needs are qualified by human reasons. This creates the moral framework for interpersonal, intrasocial, and international rules of behavior.
Morality is a child of the heart and the intellect.
You wish to add a supernatural dimension to human interaction—but this invention adds nothing to truth; Indeed it reminds the observation that morality is relative and that it is impossible for it to be otherwise.
Your conjecture that there is an immutable “Creator” creating immutable rules is just plain SILLY! Circumstances alter cases. People change and societies change. A morality based on reason addresses these changes on an ongoing basis. Whereas a society based on supernaturalism and a constant bewilderment must adjust to knowledge and change through interpolations, editing, and the dispersal into thousands of sects.
"You say the higher authority they cited was non existent therefore the whole deal is based on a lie"
NO, the whole deal is NOT based on a lie! It is based on the supposition that Man is a part of Nature and that Nature is lawful and capable of assessment. In other words...REASON exists, and reason creates value (morality).
Sugggesting there MAY be as "Creator" behind Natures's Law is innocent enough. But it is boring, as well.
Of course human need is a basis for morality. The fact is that humans require to be treated in a certain manner such that their life and their enjoyment of life are least compromised. It is this dynamic which exists between people, groups and societies which informs the laws and customs of our vast society.
Now there…the whole deal is NOT based on a lie. It is based on the supposition that Man is a part of Nature. There is a natural and lawful course that a reasoning being must follow. Suggesting there “may” be a Creator is innocent enough, I think. But the objective nature of Reality does demand that certain conventions of logic be adopted and realized.
As I touched on in my last post, I might gently quarrel with the use of “inalienable". It is clear that humans will continue to change dramatically over the next few centuries. Our brains will undoubtedly be augmented with MoDems and such. Perhaps there will be the ability to intercept all thoughts. But reason and experience and desire will yet provide the appropriate compromise to our moral initiatives…as it has always done.
"Natural Law is based on Natural Theology which you maintain is invalid."
Natural Law is separate from Natural Theology.
"if you destroy the foundation then you have no Archimedian point to stand on."
This is your problem. Morality is relative. It is YOU who needs to stand upon a point (to use your rather lame analogy). So point those toes, Darling! |
