"I didn't misrepresent your post I just paraphrased what you said...
Untrue: You complained that I had made statements without offering explanation.
"...and challenged you to ground it beyond bare assertion."
I have offered that the underlying 'rightness' of the human condition lies in the nature of human beings. You asked how can anything ever be right or wrong? I answered but you ignored and/or dismissed the answer. I've made several assertions and welcomed discussion or challenges. The evidence for the following assertion (hardly bare) would be the condensed doctrines of every major religion, every society, every philosophical text, every moral teaching, and every sane mother's knee in recorded history. If you have no specific criticism, the next logical step is to juxtapose the assertions with the structures and functions of society to determine what may be right or wrong, and what ought to be on the basis of these assertions.
"Human rightness is established on a regard for the goodness in all, and is the foundation of a healthy society. Rather than a rigid dictate, handed down by social authority to control you, it is the idea that you control, by your free will, the choice of a beneficent path over the corrupt.
Rightness is realized individually through freedom of conscience, which maintains the delicate balance between responsibility for the care of one's fellows and the freedom from oppression by one's fellows that we should all seek individually and on behalf of one another".
In a world that is wholly material there remains vast evidence of the natural and common existence of right and wrong, as it is bound in the human experience. It is secured to the operant conscience each and every human possesses, woven through the transitions of time and space, yielding meaning to every circumstance. |
