"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.
All I can do is reiterate in an attempt to clarify: Nature is set, as far as I know, for each type of creature and the Universe at large; while there is nothing to do about nature except to live out our time and adapt to circumstances as best we can. The nature of Human Beings is bound in the morality of right and wrong and so there is an 'ought to' aspect of what we choose to do.
So an ought IMO would be to choose the noblest of paths as I have positioned it. "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." Rather than to make choices to pursue the grosser attractions, which are usually positioned as corruptions of human character or 'ought nots.'
"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.
You misunderstand. I provided a philosophical treatment which I was careful not to attribute to authority and declared my intention not to offend others by misrepresenting them. Yes that was purposeful. When I said I haven't responded to a philosophical position, it was because you haven't presented one for my response. You have declared disagreement but you haven't specified the point of disagreement. You have said you are dissatisfied but you haven't clarified what you are looking for, which would fulfill your expectations...I don't believe I even have such an obligation.
"<so you don't have to bear the burden of FURTHER explanation? Is that what you are saying?>
Depends... I am happy to explore the topic further and explain as needed. Define what further is needed and I'll give it a shot.
"Let's see what it is. So far we have that's just the way things are and everyone knows.
I'm not sure what everyone knows consciously. Stating that there is a nature that is common to all of us and which has been addressed across time and society is not the same as saying everyone gets it. Much that should be common sense is not realized by individuals until it is addressed and clarified for them under amenable circumstances. Then most people will say, 'right, that makes sense.' They can do that because the truth is knowable, they are open to it, and they have it within themselves to recognize it, so at some level they do know.
(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?
My views are pretty open. I didn't pick a club to take a stand with and from which to bash all the others. Other than that my beliefs are without limit and with what I regard as a healthy skepticism. I maintain my perogative to change my views on things as circumstance enlightens me and as new information comes available. Nothing to defend and nothing to destroy in that area as far as I'm concerned.
"I notice you didn't answer my question about abortion either. Why is that? "
I'm not ready. I've attempted to discuss it before and come to the conclusion that the topic is not sufficiently understood to even form the proper question, so that it could be answered intelligently and with out bias to groups. Currently it is more of a question about loyalty to some group than it is a question of what is right. Answering the question under these circumstances lacks integrity.
"Your circular statement is used a basis to ground a philosophical claim, while the quote from Moses is a command from God. BIG DIFFERENCE!
ehhh ... I thought I was quoting Jesus. I'll double check if I get a chance.
The Golden rule quote from Jesus was a simple statement of what would amount to right living. From God does not make it different than the virtually same statement found in every culture of the world. It seems you don't think God would let them in on it, even if it weren't bound in THE book but I don't make the same presumption.
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.
In any event I'm not getting how you qualify the 'circular' in other situations, except maybe to remove the concept of free will from human beings. Human beings do choose though, whether it is choosing to follow a religious commandment from an authrorized vs of religious dogma under threat of hell fire or just because they believe its the truth.
You are again assuming to know the ultimate purpose and "design" of society?
Non Sequitor:
I didn't say anything about ultimate purpose or design. I merely pointed out the differences between a healthy society and a corrupt one. Differences that you are not disputing or do you disagree that a society supporting the well being of its members is healthy compared to one that is abusive of members and in a state of decomposition?
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.
OK.
Male bears kill their young so that they can have more sex with the Sow there is nothing immoral about that is there?
You presume to know why male bears do that but you presented no proof. It has nothing to do with immorality though. Bees rip open the nursing sacks of all the unborn queens when a new hive queen is born. When there is insufficient stores to get them through the winter they throw all the grubs out of the hive to die on the ground. That has nothing to do with morality either, it is the given nature of bees.
"...that's just the way it is."
You've never uttered a truer statement. Do you believe God created the nature of bears and bees to be that way or do you believe something ought to be done about it? You must have some reason for bringing it up besides assigning moral turpitude to the bear. I could be wrong about that. |
