Very well. I cannot resist.
>We can definitely observe and measure the effects of the forces of nature…<
Can we "definitely observe and measure the effects of the forces of nature" as it judges the rightness of abortion? Does any thing judge the rightness of our actions? What is it?
>ME: “This notion of essence is really meaningless coming from you. You just can't say ‘It just Is.'”
YOU: “Oh, contrair. I can and have many times.”<
And this statement of yours is still just as meaningless as ever it was. Does anyone here at all think it holds any sort of weight? I think not. It has no more objective authority than any statement given by anybody else. “Blue bearded Chicken Hawks just are.” There. That statement has as much authority as your “It just is.” (grin) The point is you cannot say “It Just Is” with any sort of meaning. ‘Rightness “just is” or Rightness is defined by what is correct.' Utter nonsense.
>ME: “Who or What is [this authority that comments on all moral transactions?]”
YOU:”It was you, who from the beginning challenged me by saying not to use an ultimate label. I am following the rules.”<
Dear me, brees. You are not following the rules. I did not claim you cannot use ultimate labels (whatever the heck this means). I claimed we were cutting God out of the picture. Watch this, brees. Your “essence” that according to you “Just Is” is an ultimate label and I don't see you trying to avoid that one (grin). See? You've broken the rules. So let us see you break it in this instance also.
Again, and do not run this time – Who or What is this authority in nature that judges every moral transaction? If it does not exist, then any entity possessing Might enough to exact its will without retribution can decree his rightness, and because this entity is the most relevant thing going, it is right. Remember, it is most relevant. All judgements against it ain't.
>ME: “If something declares every moral action Right or Wrong, and yet those moral actions occur without regard for the declaration, it is really nothing at all. It is completely irrelevant.”
YOU:” Making declarations is irrelevant unless referencing the authority, I agree. I have made no such declaration.”<
Brees. Of course I was not referring to you. The point is if there exists no authority in nature to judge every moral transaction, then whoever exists that can exact his will without meaningful retribution, possesses Might enough to make his own declaration regarding his moral action. He can kill and then seeing no one with Might enough to meaningfully judge him, he can say “I did a good thing.” Now you may disagree with him. So may I and many others. But the fact is, we really do not count until we garner to ourselves Might enough to make us relevant. Until then, the murderer is most relevant.
>ME: “What is relevant is the action that takes place without regard for anything but itself.”
YOU:”Absolutely.”
ME: ”It is Might, and as such it possesses authority to declare itself Right.”
YOU:”Ah breach, if you are referring to the relative Might as you have described earlier then it is not Right except in the natural sense.”<
There is no God, brees. The natural sense is all there is.
>YOU:”This is a declaration of transience and the limitations of temporality. I don't think Might defines right in this sense in any way. Might declares itself to us in a very surperficial and controvertible manner. Hardly a declaration of right that no one can refute, as you claim.”<
Hehe. I see you now are very near understanding my point, and this is why I continue with this issue. Firstly, I have not claimed no one can refute a declaration by Might, but rather that no one can refute it with meaning until they have garnered sufficient Might to do it. In other words, if the person refuting Might cannot do so with authority, then he is irrelevant, just as you have admitted. So then whose declaration matters? Might's does, because its ability to actually implement its will makes it the most relevant thing going. Should it claim it is right, then it is. Its declarations are the most relevant. They have more meaning than anything else.
Now let us review your statement above concerning transience. You claim the declaration of the greater Might is merely one of transience, as if you are certain that every Top Might will be overthrown. To claim ipso facto all such declarations are transient is not altogether proven, however it appears currently. A thousand years from now perhaps even death will be conquered. We really do not know how transient a declaration by Might is until it has been supplanted. So to claim a declaration by Might is ONLY transient is really unproven. It is also irrelevant to my point.
If there is no overarching authority to judge all moral transactions, then whoever exists with Might enough to make a declaration stick, is most relevant AT THE TIME of the declaration. This is what really matters. What is relevant at the time is what matters (grin – brees we're sounding really funny here with these tautologies). As I have said many times, Might is fluid, flowing between circumstances and time. But wherever it exists, it is right, unless there comes into being a greater Might to overrule it. Mere transient Might? It is all there is, and it dictates what is right at the time it exists.
>A simple matter and at the heart of my claims on the essence of rightness. A chair is known by its form, not by substance. The form of a chair is "something that represents a seat." As you said, "we all know what it is."<
Brees, please do not confuse this issue like this. I am trusting you not to do this. I meant this statement only practically, because to sell chairs we will make them according to certain conventions (you should be able to put your butt on it “comfortably”). But speaking ultimately (and this is where its at here), the attribute of “chairness” is nebulous.
>For example I could hollow out the seat of my grandfathers wooden rocker and place a pot there. In the pot I could place a cactus or something. No longer is it clearly a chair. It would best be described as a potted plant.<
Only according to you. Others will call it a chair with a plant in it.
>We have a common experience with the topics of this thread. The human beings here can definitely put their finger on what is right and it rarely lines up with might.<
It always lines up with Might, brees. The people here do not DEFINITELY put their finger on anything. Take Clinton for example. It is clear to many of us that what he did with Lewinsky was “wrong.” We have arrived at the conclusion from many differing perspectives. Nevertheless some of us think it was not wrong. I have heard it said too often for my sensibilities that if Clinton needed to do what he did to relieve tension (and whatnot), then there was nothing wrong with it. Which view is right, and why? Does some “essence” that “just is” tell you which is right?
>Many of these spokes persons have no more to go on than, "Surely we all know what a chair/right is." Because of the complex nature of our temporal existence we are bound to struggle with the application of what is right.<
Oh. I guess the “human beings here” are different then, because according to you they “can definitely put their finger on what is right and it rarely lines up with might.”
>ME: “You have not shown that nature governs an essential rightness that objectively measures all things with authority.”
YOU: ”Nor did I try to, as that is not my contention at all. Rightness is a form that measures. It neither governs nor is it governed by other forms. Definitely not by a transient and relative Might.”<
I see. Back to this “essence” that “Just is.” This essence of yours, does it have anything to say about homosexuality or abortion or bestiality? Yes? Tell us what it says and how it says it. And how does this “essence” that “Just is” reference the authority it needs to make its declarations relevant?
An “ethics” panel of the Clinton Administration just gave the moral green light to America to do “research” on human embryos. Any essence saying anything about that? How, brees? And how does this essence reference the authority it needs to make its declarations relevant?
>ME: “Were Absolute Might not to exist, then Whatever exists directly beneath Absolute Might is by definition the Greatest Might, and just as was the case for Absolute Might (which now does not exist), It is Right. …the mere fact that its will is implemented gives it more meaning than anything else.”
YOU: ”Total nonsense as you have breached the context of our discussion to include a relative hierarchy. I give you this, greater force conquers lesser force in nature. Nothing to do with what is right.”<
Oh. Then is there an overarching “hierarchy” by which all moral actions are judged? What is it? This “essence” of yours? How does it judge abortion, brees? And to what authority does it refer for its relevance?
>[Might makes Right is] A narrow definition of survival of the fittest.<
Call it what you will. It is reality, and there is nothing else above it—except for this “essence” of yours that has no relevance.
>ME: ”I would certainly like to better understand this natural essence of yours that “just is” and that judges all things meaningfully. You claim it “just is,” a thing that is certainly not objectively apparent in my opinion.”
YOU:”I'm doing the best I can.”<
Very well. You would do better to spell it out. Show us how this objective essence of yours that “just is” and that judges all things meaningfully works. How does it judge abortion for example? Let me be more specific. A woman finds she has conceived a girl. She wants a boy. She has the girl killed at six months gestation. She honestly believes the child was not a human. The abortionist believes likewise. She and the abortionist both go on to live and prosper. They eventually die. Now how does this “essence” that “just is” fit in here? |
