I will try once more to explain this simple matter to you. But if you are merely being obstructionist, Tim, then, obviously I will have wasted my time.
____________________________
MORAL VALUES EXIST
I take it that we agree with this premise, Tim. My understanding was that we were discussing the nature of moral principles--absolute or relative--not the question of their existence.
HUMAN REASONING IS LIMITED
I take it that we agree with the premise that human reasoning is limited by the human condition; that it is imperfect and conditional.
OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE POSSIBLE
I take it that we agree that, in spite of the limitation entailed by the preceding--objective knowledge, based on a consensus of reasoning, is still a meaningful concept. Correct and incorrect are still meaningful concepts. Without such agreement, it would be pointless for us to have a discussion on the nature of reality.
THERE ARE OBJECTIVE HUMAN VALUES
I take it that you accept the fact that there are objective moral values based on reason. The conclusion is inescapable. Even you would not say that people who don't believe in God do not have moral values.
All objective human values (as follows from the above premises) are limited and conditional, unless the entity exercising the objectivity is the supreme being.
Neither you nor I are the Supreme entity.
Therefore, all your objective moral values, and all my objective moral values, are relative moral values; because ALL conditional values are relative values. ALL human objective values are qualified by human ignorance and personal bias.
To restate the above: all objective human values are relative. This is the default, de facto, and evidentiary understanding. I pointed this out to your ( what is it now? 4 times ), because you seemed to be arguing whether or not human moral values were relative or absolute. This, of course, is not profitably argued, as the question is not in dispute. Human moral values are ( whether subjective or "objective" ) limited, conditional, and relative. Because that is the nature of human thought, regardless of despots who might claim otherwise.
If any of the above premises are not grasped by you, then I would prefer not to discuss this particular topic with you any further.
___________________
Of course, in addition to relative human values, which we know objectively, it may be argued that some moral values ( known or unknown ) might happen to be unconditional or absolute. The only people who would "KNOW" this would be people priviledged to supernatural information.
There are two basic ways to argue the proposition that some values might happen to be "absolute": (1). attempting a proof of God, or (2) relying on revelatory belief in God.
Additionally, philosophers have attempted to discover or contrive a moral value which is universally recognized as good or evil--without qualification or condition. This would allow one to infer the possibility of an absolute agent. They have been unsuccessful in this endeavour.
For instance, one could say: "it is "good" to be free". But this is a matter of interpretation and qualification, and (far from garnering universal acceptance), would appeal only to the dull, or the mad.
Good and evil are not substances. Neither are they behaviours. They are assessments of conduct. For instance, the behaviour of killing, in and of itself, is morally neutral. There are "good" killings: there are "evil" killings. The moral character of the behaviour waits upon the evaluation and interpretation of the observer.
These assessments either have ultimate reliance on a supreme and absolute intelligence--or they do not. If they do not, then they are strictly human assessments. And as you remember...all assessments made by human beings are relative. If these asessments rely on an Absolute moral agent, then this is to be proved. The supernatural world cannot merely be assumed
It seems to me to be self evident that behaviour is neutral and must be assessed in relation to a variety of applicable circumstances in order to be adequately evaluated and judged. Therefore, even if there were a supreme being, it would not follow that unqualified moral principles would exist. Rather, such a being would likely have made "good" relative ( as it appears to be ), and would have created reason and sensitivity as the tools for determining which conduct is helpful or hurtful to the individual, and to humanity as a whole. THis also relates to the concept of responsibility as moral agents...but that is another story.
I'm sorry that you believe in absolute values. This, IMO, is the second ugliest concept that humanity has invented in the quest for power and control. First prize goes to the despicable concept of original sin.
I don't object to labels such as good or evil--provided they are divorced from the ugly and evil concepts of absolutism.
People who believe in absolute rules often embrace a certainty which encourages intolerance, bigotry, exclusion, and insensitivity. Whether they be leaders, or whether they be followers, they seek to create obeisance to dictates; orders which they believe to be commanded by a supernatural power who has revealed his will to them in one of myriad and contradictory communications--messages scratched, etched, chiselled, and scribbled by all manner of bemused people down through the ages. It is a matter of interest that one of the definitions given for absolutism is "despotism", LOL! But then, that is precisely the point, isn't it!? |
