To: Solon who wrote (70801 ) 7/18/2003 2:01:52 PM From: one_less Read Replies (1) | Respond to It appears now that I can completely agree with you now, except on whether or not we have a common understanding on the use of some of the terminology. ”It is agreed by all sensible people that these "principles" exist. The point is that different people and groups of people held (and hold) diametrically opposed moral principles which they claim to be Ultimate. In every case where two such claims conflict, at least one of them is NOT Absolute.” ”Nobody is arguing whether principles exist, or whether societies have always enjoyed a variety of moral principles and laws to control and guide conduct between citizens. The question is only whether these opinions of right conduct were invented by humans in response to their personalized points of view, were invented by a supernatural being, or were opinions of the universe which somehow got enmeshed therein to be discovered by humans.” ”Now you are trifling, I fear. These definitional descriptors have nothing to do with the origin of moral opinions. They are simple definitional tautologies. Saying that cauliflower is a vegetable does not prove that such an opinion is not a human invention and definition.” ”Again, you are simply giving a definitional tautology. A moral principle needs to reflect a moral truism. It must express the rightness or wrongness of some behaviour or conduct. In this case the "principle" would be: it is "right" or "good" to be just in your dealings with others. Or in other words it is just to be just. Defining a concept or inventing the meaning of a word does not equate with a principle. We accept in the definition of just that justice is just. Defining a word does not qualify as a moral imperative.” ”The commandment to "be just" could be considered a moral principle if there are premises such as, God exists, What God commands is good, God commanded in ABC chronicles to "be just"...therefore it is good to be just. But I am afraid that simply defining malfeasance as bad, charity as good, and fish as slippery does not constitute a principle.” Now you and I could sit down for an hour and come up with several hundred examples of moral principles that ARE more than definitional tautologies. Furthermore, it is likely that we could come up with principles that were highly sensible, reasonable, practical, and logical. They might even represent our own personalized moral ideals. I dare say they would. But this is the point, Jewels: No matter how sensible or idealistic the principles we came up with by brainstorming...they would be subjective and relative principles from fallible and limited creatures. ”We may not diasagree that much on the DEFINITION of moral terms such as justice, charity, respect, duty, etc., but we certainly disagree all over the world as to what conduct ought to correspond to such terms.””There is one popular moral principle believed in by many as Absolute which is something like this: Do good to those that hate you. Not only is this not universally nor generally accepted, but it has no internal consistency as understood by subjective practitioners.” The idea of an Absolute Morality is best argued from a perspective of blind faith; because as C.H. tried to tell you: Baby...you can't get there from here...--<gg>
