"you are clipping something, while drawing a conclusion that does not ring true in consideration of the content on the whole."
If I thought I was doing that I would stop, I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent what you are saying: That's what DAK does. That said, I think the text I cited does by and large sum up your argument but perhaps there is more there than I am seeing.
"I haven't provided philosophical responses..."
So that's the way it's going to be is it? That seems just slightly disingenuous. The entire conversation is philosophical You have purposely avoided citing any formal source: true, but you are certainly making philosophical claims.
But I see; everybody knows that what you are saying is true so you don't have to bear the burden of explanation? Is that what you are saying?
"I don't know what everybody knows but if you are positioning characterization as a sort of 'common sense' as verified across time, societies, and disciplines, then OK. So what?"
The "so what?" is in the second half of the sentence which you cut in half. I suppose I should have qualified it to read <so you don't have to bear the burden of FURTHER explanation? Is that what you are saying?>
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."
That's why they are not in quotation marks, but you are saying that you have a further explanation. Let's see what it is. So far we have that's just the way things are and everyone knows.
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."
Fair enough but if you are unwilling to offer other alternatives then you are simply avoiding the issue and refusing to open your views to examination, which is the opposite of what you have been claiming to be doing? I notice you didn't answer my question about abortion either. Why is that?
"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."
Your circular statement is used a basis to ground a philosophical claim, while the quote from Moses is a command from God. BIG DIFFERENCE! The philosophical justification for the Golden Rule is that it is an obligation imposed on Humans by their Creator/God and is itself a reflection of the nature and character of God. Your statement is circular; the Golden rule is linear.
"and is the foundation of a healthy society."
How do you know what constitutes a 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 characterized by abuses and degradation of societal composition and the harm it brings to societal members."
You are again assuming to know the ultimate purpose and "design" of society? Same thing with dysfunction You cannot move from what is to what ought to be if you do not first KNOW what the proper function and purposes are. Male bears kill their young so that they can have more sex with the Sow there is nothing immoral about that is there? that's just the way it is.
To be continued...
|
