"Can? I thought we were trying to establish a "MUST"?"
No. Of course not. People choose what to value. The discussion was about whether or not rational choices were a reliable guide to the good and as to whether or not they reflected a commonality. It must be obvious to you that actions have different outcomes and that is why they have different merit and that is why it is necessary to exercise free will (in whatever parameters "free will" may be considered to exist) to assess and evaluate the value (or, if you will) the ethical implications and consequences of our actions.
Try not to confuse "ought" with "must". Unless we beg the question by ASSUMING a supernaturally imposed set of moral duties, our use of ought assesses and informs the question. It does not impose a capricious answer. Nothing can be said to be a moral action where it is compelled. "MUST" denies all responsibility and thus accountability. It makes the question of moral judgment and the evaluation of right and wrong a nullity. One cannot be a moral agent if ones actions are essentially compelled. However, if one chooses an action because the consequences may be rationalized as beneficial, then one eclipses instinctive self interest with enlightened self interest—that is to say, one recognizes rationally that if he wishes to be accorded intrinsic worth and fundamental rights and freedoms then he must grant it to all others. It is really quite simple: Make love or war. We are only hostile to those with values fundamentally opposed to our own
What a terrible world it would be if our reliance on human decency and good will depended on convincing one another that a terrible creature would torture us forever if we did not comply with whatever His Commandments were?! And how terrible it is when our opinion of WHAT is good and decent may rest on different ancient scribblings out of primitive antiquity.
"No, it's not axiomatic beyond the individual"
You DO have troubling following, don't you? Naturally, it is the individual who has an immanent urge to preserve his/her life and to be happy in the living of it. It is the individual who makes the moral choices as to how to act--as to how to treat other creatures. It has been my contention that these choices flow from his innate nature and from the nature of reality. And like all other fields of human endeavor...to the degree that one can master the facts of reality--to that degree may one act to be alive, safe, and happy. I have pointed out that human safety and happiness depend on the goodwill and cooperation of others. Over time as we have constructed civilized societies and refined our expectations of rights and freedoms we have become more and more enmeshed in the social judgment of others--both formally (such as in harming life or property) and informally (such as not pulling ones weight in a community effort to better living conditions).
But morality is relative and involves individual and group agendas for power. So always hire a lawyer of the right Nationality and make sure he/she knows the judge.
You wish to assert that we "must" do such and such because it is the Will of a Supreme Being. I say that is beyond our apprehension of reality and is essentially imaginary and relative to various cultures, religions, and National Agendas. On the other hand, reason shows plainly that one wishing to choose between right and wrong must begin with some fundamental value which is advanced or retarded by the choices we make. And if it is to be an ethic for humanity (i.e. a universal ethic) then it must be rationally applicable to all people. I maintain that rational people consider it as prima facie that ones life is the ultimate value for each individual to hold. Rand adds that reason is therefore the ultimate virtue, and I find no quarrel with that.
I do not contend that because morality may be rationally assessed, therefore it is not relative. Reason gives civilized peoples the means to choose the good, the peaceful, the harmonious, and the beneficial. But morality will always be relative because people will never be Absolute. And if they were then they would no longer be people. And what would be the point of living if you were not?
"You can pretend that your position is logical, but in fact; "Those are the ethics of a mental midget"."
What I said was exactly as in the following quote. You have not demonstrated anything illogical about it. If anything, you have demonstrated how fitting and apropos were my words.
I explained repeatedly that "ought" relates TO HUMAN VALUE. It is axiomatic that life is the primary value. All of us seek to preserve life and to be happy living it. People such as yourself attempt to preserve it for eternity, even though it exposes your irrationality. Your assertion that one needs to be a Christian to have ethics is too too stupid. Mature people do not need to justify ethical treatment of one another by the imagined rewards and punishments from some pompous and cruel entity. Those are the ethics of a mental midget and an emotional chicken." |
