"Sadly, the following comment pretty much sums up your entire argument."
As has been pointed out now numerous times, you are clipping something, while drawing a conclusion that does not ring true in consideration of the content on the whole. Its called parsing, or quoting out of context.
You could just as well say that Jesus told his followers to drink blood and practice canabalism to prove their faith. Remember - Drink of my blood, eat of my flesh. A very good argument could be made that this is the core of Christianity... ignoring of course the broader context.
"I find your responses to be unsatisfactory and philosophically ungrounded. You call that ignoring and dismissing. I disagree.
I haven't provided philosophical responses to anything since you've provided nothing philosophical but a recent link to a philosophical article, which does nothing except maybe confirm the statements and support the pattern of reason I've employed.
Your disatisfaction is unqualified and your disagreement is unfounded ...
But I see; everybody knows that what you are saying is true ...
I don't know what everybody knows but if you are positioning characterisation as a sort of 'common sense' as verified across time, societies, and disciplines, then OK. So what?
"...so you don't have to bear the burden of explanation? Is that what you are saying?
This is a false allegation which you have repeated. I have offered explanation and I've shown willingness to expand on that.
Do you really think <<everyone knows that>> is a philosophically robust answer?
Those are your words not mine. When it can accurately be determined that everyone has privy to certain knowledge, it can be ruled as common sense and can be employed in philosophy but not usually as the only element of a matter. I have not made that claim in this case.
"Are you trying to ground Natural goodness in a supernatural God or are you grounding it in an atheistic materialism?"
That's your boogyman not mine, let's keep it that way. I don't believe in forced choices and this one is a false dichotomy.
"Human rightness is established on a regard for the goodness in all,"
This is viciously circular.
Really? I don't see it that way, but then I don't see the following statement as viciously circular either. I suppose you've been taught by the authorities not to view this one in that light so you likely don't. The two statements, however, follow an unescapable similarity in pattern.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"and is the foundation of a healthy society."
How do you know what constitutes a healthy society?
Surely you jest. Off the top of my head: Healthy society = A society of human beings living in an organized system designed to support the optimal health and well being of societal members. Corruption = A dysfunctional system characterised by abuses and degradation of societal composition and the harm it brings to societal members.
But you asked, how I know. I could say somethings can be known by their face value or by common sense but you are bound to complain about that so lets just say. I went to school and learnt it there.
"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."
You assume free will exists in a mechanical world.
Its an easy assumption since that has been my experience and the claim of all human societies as far as I know.
You also assume to know what is ultimately beneficent and by putting that "over the corrupt" you must therefore also know what the uncorrupted must look like.
Abstractly speaking, yes. I know what uncorruption is.
"Can you justify any of these assumptions from a materialistic worldview?"
I've never tried, nor do I feel the need to. I'm not a materialist, except as practically necessary to get bread and butter on a table, so I don't think I'm the right person to answer that question. Talk about unfounded assumptions, you're proving to be the king of that.
""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"."
But the question at hand is how do you objectively ground obligations and freedoms from a materialistic worldview in the first place?
Same response as above...
""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."
I'm sure you think that is very erudite and compelling;
I just thought it had the ring of truth and fit where I placed it.
I think it's just ungrounded question begging and gobbledygook.
oops there you go again, dismissing the truth when it makes you uncomfortable.
Individual conscience is about as subjective as you can get.
It is also the absolute best human faculty for determining right from wrong. If you are able to deny your own conscience so easily, I am not surprised at how quick you are to dismiss the truth. Zealots in ancient times were also quite good at that, and lopping off the heads of people not doing religion right.
Sociopaths sleep just fine.
If you say so, I wouldn't know.
"Collective conscience OTOH is at best, a symptom or a clue, that points to another source beyond itself; it is not an answer.
You seem to like jumping to extremes. I haven't claimed personal conscience contains answers to complex questions. 'Clue' is a good enough characterisation. People who deny their own conscience, conversly are clueless. I'm asserting another fact here. |
