Posted on 02/26/2003 7:19:40 AM PST by Nix 2
|
If there is an absolute standard of morality, then there must be a God. Disagree? Consider the alternative. |
God's existence has direct bearing on how we view morality. As Dostoyevsky so famously put it, "Without God, everything is permitted."
At first glance, this statement may not make sense. Everything is permitted? Can't there be a morality without an infinite God?
Perhaps some of the confusion is due to a murky definition of morality we owe to moral relativism. Moral relativism maintains that there is no objective standard of right and wrong existing separate and independent from humanity. The creation of moral principles stems only from within a person, not as a distinct, detached reality. Each person is the source and definer of his or her subjective ethical code, and each has equal power and authority to define morality the way he or she sees fit.
 |
|
| Random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea, but who says your standards are for everyone? | |
|
|
The consequences of moral relativism are far-reaching. Since all moral issues are subjective, right and wrong are reduced to matters of opinion and personal taste. Without a binding, objective standard of morality that sticks whether one likes it or not, a person can do whatever he feels like by choosing to label any behavior he personally enjoys as "good." Adultery, embezzlement, and random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea -- but why should that stop someone from taking pleasure in them if that is what they enjoy.
Is having an intimate relationship with a 12-year-old objectively wrong just because you don't like it?
Perhaps murder makes a serial killer feel powerful and alive. A moral relativist can say he finds murder disgusting, but that does not make it wrong -- only distasteful. Hannibal, the Cannibal, is entitled to his own preferences even if they are unusual and repugnant to most.
Popularity has nothing to do with determining absolute morality; it just makes it commonplace, like the color navy.
"But this killer is hurting others!" True. But in a world where everything is subjective, hurting an innocent person is merely distasteful to some, like eating chocolate ice cream with lasagna. Just because we may not like it doesn't make it evil. Evil? By whose standard? No one's subjective opinion is more authoritative than another's. INCONSISTENT VALUES
Although many people may profess to subscribe to moral relativism, it is very rare to find a consistent moral relativist. Just about everyone believes in some absolute truths. That absolute truth may only be that it is wrong to hurt others, or that there are no absolutes. The point is that just about everyone is convinced that there is some form of absolute truth, whatever that truth may be. Most of us, it seems, are not moral relativists.
Bertrand Russell wrote:
I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.
Not too many of us believe that killing an innocent person is just a matter of taste that can change according to whim. Most of us think it is an act that is intrinsically wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks. According to this view, the standard of morality is an unchangeable reality that transcends humanity, not subject to our approval. THE INFINITE SOURCE
An absolute standard of morality can only stem from an infinite source. Why is that?
When we describe murder as being immoral, we do not mean it is wrong just for now, with the possibility of it becoming "right" some time in the future. Absolute means unchangeable, not unchanging.
What's the difference?
My dislike for olives is unchanging. I'll never start liking them. That doesn't mean it is impossible for my taste to change, even though it's highly unlikely. Since it could change, it is not absolute. It is changeable.
The term "absolute" means without the ability to change. It is utterly permanent, unchangeable.
Think of something absolute. Take for example an icon of permanence and stability -- the Rock of Gibraltar. "Get a piece of the rock" -- it lasts forever!
But does it really? Is it absolute?
No. It is undergoing change every second. It is getting older, it is eroding.
The nature of absolute is a bit tricky to grasp because we find ourselves running into the same problem of our finite selves attempting to perceive the infinite, a topic we have discussed in a previous article in this series. Everything that exists within time undergoes change. That's what time is -- a measurement of change. In Hebrew, shanah means "year," sharing the same root shinah, "change."
|
|
| If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change, where can we find the quality of absolute? | |
|
|
If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change -- since it exists within time -- where can we find the quality of absolute?
Its source cannot be in time, which is constantly undergoing change. It must be beyond time, in the infinite dimension. Only God, the infinite being that exists beyond time, is absolute and unchangeable.
'I am God, I do not change.' (Malachi 3:6)
Therefore an absolute standard of morality can exist only if it stems from an infinite dimension -- a realm that is eternal, beyond time, with no beginning and no end. THE DEATH OF EDUCATION
In addition to the demise of morality, moral relativism inevitably leads to the death of education and genuine open-mindedness. The thirst for real learning comes from the recognition that the truth is out there waiting to be discovered -- and I am all the more impoverished with its absence.
Professor Alan Bloom writes in his book "The Closing of the American Mind,"
It is the rarest of occurrences to find a youngster who has been infused by this [liberal arts] education with a longing to know all about China or the Romans or the Jews.
All to the contrary. There is an indifference to such things, for relativism has extinguished the real motive of education, the search for the good life...
...out there in the rest of the world is a drab diversity that teaches only that values are relative, whereas here we can create all the life-styles we want. Our openness means we do not need others. Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life...
If everything is relative, then it makes no difference what anyone thinks. Ideas no longer matter. With no absolute standard of right and wrong or truth and falsehood, the pursuit of wisdom becomes nonsensical. What are we searching for? If no idea is more valid than another, there is no purpose in re-evaluating one's belief system and being open to exploring new concepts -- since there is no possibility of ever being wrong.
A common argument often heard for supporting relativism is that in the world at large we see a plethora of differing positions on a wide range of moral issues. Try to find one issue all cultures universally agree to!
Professor Bloom addresses this contention:
History and the study of cultures do not teach or prove that values or cultures are relative ... the fact that there have been different opinions about good and bad in different times and places in no way proves that none is true or superior to others. To say that it does so prove is as absurd as to say that the diversity of points of view expressed in a college bull session proves there is no truth ... the natural reaction is to try to resolve the difference, to examine the claims and reasons for each opinion.
Only the unhistorical and inhuman belief that opinions are held for no reason would prevent the undertaking of such an exciting activity. THE NATURE OF DEBATE
The plethora of disagreements demonstrates exactly the opposite point. If everything is relative, what on earth are we arguing about?
Imagine walking down the street and you hear a ferocious argument taking place behind a door. People are yelling at each other in a fit of rage. You ask a bystander what the commotion is all about. He tells you this is a Ben & Jerry's ice cream store and they're fighting over what is the best flavor of ice cream.
Impossible.
|
|
| Heated debates occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions. | |
|
|
Real debates and disagreements occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions, not mere preferences of flavors. Think of a time you experienced moral outrage. The force behind that anger is the conviction that your position is the correct one. Matters of preference, like music and interior design, do not provoke moral outrage.
What provokes our moral outrage? Injustice? Cruelty? Oppression? There is the sense that an absolute standard of morality is being violated, an objective standard that transcends humanity, that stems from an infinite and absolute Being.
This is precisely what I'm talking about. The reasoning that the prohibition against murder is NOT a matter of personal preference is the same reasoning as the prohibition against 2+2=5. Neither permits a sustainable societal structure to be put in place. There simply is no society that permits or can permit any random member, at his pleasure, to purposefully kill another member. You can say all day long that it is a matter of preference, but it isn't. No more than a society can permit 2+2 to be 5.
Don't thinks so? Be my guest. Explain how your theoretical society can establish and sustain itself where random murder is permitted. How do the roads or businesses get built? How are agreements reached when the most basic requirement, that of trust is absent? I await the described results of this mere preference.
It's interesting to read your arguments.
It seems to me that you are arguing from a utilitarian empiricist perspective, whereas I am arguing from a rational absolutist perspective.
Neither perspective necessarily does injustice to my Core Thesis (at heart, I'm fundamentally a Theist... my Core Thesis is simply that, "If the Law of God is Absolute, and the Law of God is Commensurate with Objective Fact, and the Atheist is capable of deducing Objective Fact... then the Atheist may indeed derive Absolute Fact-Based Maxims").
But it's interesting to read a Utilitarian Empiricist, rather than a Rational Absolutist, structure of the Argument (if I have not mis-read you).
You appear to be arguing that 2 + 2 must equal 4, because no other Solution will obtain any sort of Empirical Utility.
Unless I mis-read you.
Just a fascinating discussion, no critique intended. (yet... grin)
best, OP
I just heard on the radio that Michael Jackson has offered some witch doctor $150,000 to put a deadly curse on David Geffen. Oh yeah, there are folks who adamently believe "things" can be good or evil. Matter of fact, I think I've heard of people believing that trips to Lourdes were "good". They must believe the place itself is positive, or why the need to go there?
Let me go over my point again. 2+2=4 is an opinion. Why do you call it a fact? Because it's been so useful. It permits the establishment of a beneficial system of mathematics. If 2+2=5 were to be shown to permit the establishment of a beneficial system of mathematics, it would also be a "fact".
Don't think this could happen? One of Euclid's postulates stated that given a line and a point not on the line, there was one and only one line through the given point parallel to the given line. As a postulate, it is something not proved. You either agree with or not -- your choice. Many believed this particular postulate should be provable from the other postulates and tried for many years to do so. They were unsuccessful. A mathematician, Reimann I believe, said, OK, I won't accept the postulate. That means there is either no line that is parallel or more than one parallel line. From that rejection came hyperbolic and ellipitic geometries. Both have their uses, although I couldn't tell you what they are off the top of my head.
Like the "fact" that 2+2=4, the prohibition of random murder of any member of a society by another member has proven so useful that no society, to my knowledge, has ever permitted it. There is no way to establish a sustainable, successful society without this prohibition. It is simply a "fact".
I've just picked this thread up again, and was trying to asnwer some loose-end replies I had out there. I have skimmed some of what you've posted but need to examine them more in depth to see how our arguments might differ. You are certainly much more lucid than I.
In the meantime, if you would care to do so, consider the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent aspects of a supernatural being. I consider the latter two to be special conditions of the first. Have you ever given it any thought? It ties in, at least tangentially, to what I'm attempting to argue.
Again: A and B actually have many options to accomplish the Objective -- you've just arbitrarily tossed the rest of them out by carefully constructing a single case, and then treating that case as if it were the only case there is.
In your kind example you've done it again: you're requiring that I assume at a whole host of things, none of which is strictly necessary to the objective of reaching the top of the mountain.
You have also, without justification, decided that A and B have already adopted some "assumed basic premises" which include, apparently, that A and B must choose different paths, and that A and B must of necessity reach the top all by themselves.
But with those "assumed basic premises" you've already rigged the game -- you've already tossed out the possibility that A might pay B to carry him to the top; or that B decides to drag A to the top whether or not he actually wants to go there; or any other type of behavior that will take them to the top.
It's dishonest to pretend you've done something grand, when you've really just avoided the real point of the exercise by selecting those "assumed premises" for us!
the Free Agent in question deduces as a matter of Objective Fact that he must adhere with ABSOLUTE Consistency to the appropriate Behavioral Maxim for reaching the Top of the Mountain
Here's where the "assumed premises" fail you. You've assumed that A and B choose different paths. But again, there's no reason to assume this. Indeed, A and B can't be Free Agents if they cannot choose the same path. If they're on the same path, then A and B can, midway up the mountain, decide to work out a deal whereby A carries B -- thus, your proposed Behavior is not absolute, even if it was the one adopted at the beginning of the day.
Next, you are assuming (again without justification) that both A and B are Free Agents. This is not necessary: why have you tossed out the "assumed premise" that B is not a Free Agent, but instead beholden in some manner to A? In that case, A can require B to carry him to the top on his back. Or perhaps B will have to carry A only when the latter becomes tired -- again, the your proposed Behavior is not absolute.
And in either case, there is not necessarily any transcendent moral value assigned to reaching the Top of the Mountain -- it is simply the desired objective of the Free Agent.
False. You're essentially assuming that the Objective Fact of the mountain automatically translates to the (allegedly) Objective Fact that A and B will want to climb it, which is clearly wrong. In reality, the "transcendent moral value" in the problem is whatever drives the desire for A and B to climb the mountain in the first place. People (sane ones, anyway) generally don't desire things for no reason whatsoever. The desire is based on external factors: something that transcends (i.e., is apart from) the Actors or the Mountain.
Come to think of it, this appears to be yet another example of how you've rigged the game: you've a priori decided that the top of the mountain is the goal. As a result, you have tossed out the possibility that A hates mountains, and wants to walk away from the mountain until it disappears over the horizon; or that B wouldn't notice or care whether he reached the top at all. Nope -- they've got to reach the top.
These are not idle objections -- in setting even this supposedly simple problem you have had to impose a large number of carefully selected constraints on the problem. (And you still didn't arrive at "absolutes.") In so doing, you have relieved A and B of the necessity of having to sift through the available options. You have, in effect, played the role of God.
Thus proving the Rabbi's point.
You have improperly added the word "random" to the argument. My comment has to do with a society based on Might Makes Right, whereby murder is acceptable behavior for the strong, as a means of maintaining power over the weak. (Even so, absent "God's law written on our hearts," I think "random murder" would probably be just the startup transient for a society based on Might Makes Right. The motivation to commit random murder is moderated by a desire to remain un-murdered. Thus, the behavior of the weaker is governed by the threat of punishment or death at the hands of the stronger.)
What, precisely, do you mean by "sustainable societal structure?" Pharaonic Egypt lasted for thousands of years on the basis of the idea that Pharaoh held absolute power of life and death over his subjects. It's a historical fact that Pharaoh and his lieutenants could (and did) murder their subjects with impunity.
We would call Pharaoh evil. The Egyptians called him a god. Without some external "I AM" calling his murders wrong, the choice of "evil" or "god" is nothing but a matter of personal preference.
Get it?
Here's what you would allow:
-Private ownership of nuclear weapons; -Marketing of simulated child pornography; -Voluntary cannibalism.
Again, answer the question...would you allow voluntarily contracted cannibalism? We already know that you are O.K. with people posting billboards of simulated child pornography in their front yards. And the Eucharist has nothing to do with it...answer the question:
Would you allow me to open up a restaurant offering human flesh on the menu? As long as the people you were "serving" were not killed and voluntarily contracted and agreed to this after they died? Would you allow parents whose children had died to sell their children's bodies to my restaurant?
I hate to be so disgusting, but you are one hard case, my friend. Intelligent people simply cannot be libertarians. It's got to be something else with you, OP. I'm not going anywhere until I release you from Satan's grasp. You're worth saving, OP...
I do not consider that Ted Bundy was murdered. An act by the state taken to punish individuals that violate rules is not the same as the initial violators' acts. I don't consider imprisoning a kidnapper kidnapping, nor fining a thief theft.
All of which leads me back to my original conjecture: no society can permit murder. By murder I mean the capricious, intentional, unilateral act of killing by any member of the society of any other member of the society.
You can call the prohibition of murder a "fact." You can call it a "universal value." You can call it a "belief." But you cannot call it a "preference" for it is incompatible with establishing and maintaining a society. Just as 2+2=5 is incompatible with erecting tall structures.
You'll also recall that Herod ordered the death of all boys under 2 when Jesus was born.
Are you going to say that these Murders of the Innocents by "the properly constituted government" is not murder?
In the first place, I actually haven't answered your question on "Voluntary cannibalism" yet, so it is a bearing of False Witness on your part to attribute to me a position which I have not yet claimed. (I have answered all your other questions, despite the fact that you have been uncharitably unresponsive in refusing to answer my questions. But I'll return to that in a bit).
Anyway, I have elected to discuss a "related point" (i.e., the Eucharist) before I proceed -- and so I have not answered the question of Voluntary Cannibalism just yet. You attribute positions to me which I have not claimed -- As I said before, you may repent at your leisure.
Moving forward to the main body of my Post...
You assert, Intelligent people simply cannot be libertarians. By your tone, it seems that you are implying you regard me as an intelligent person (hence your befuddlement at my libertarianism); and so I must thank you for the very kind implied Compliment.
However, HumanaeVitae, I feel it is incumbent upon me to observe: one of the marks of an "intelligent person" is the ability to clearly and precisely explain one's positions, and to exposit one's rationale therefore. And this is something which you simply ARE NOT doing. I have repeatedly asked you a number of comparatively simple questions, and you have repeatedly refused to answer them. Why is that? Are you INCAPABLE of clearly and precisely explaining your own positions, and expositing your rationale therefore? Because you are certainly acting like it.
Let's revisit the Grounds of Debate...
Let's take them each in turn... I am going to mix up the order somewhat, as I care to.
DEBATE #1 -- Marketing of simulated child pornography
HumanaeVitae, please elucidate for me the exact Civil Penalty which would be assessed against an Israelite Painter for fabricating an artificial, imaginary representation of an Immoral Act. That's right, there ISN'T any Civil Penalty assigned by the Law of God.
Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for fabricating an artificial, imaginary representation of an Immoral Act, or was the Law of God wrong?
Why do you not just answer that Question? It is a simple enough question. Why are you incapable of answering it, do you suppose?
DEBATE #2 -- Private ownership of nuclear weapons
Why do you not just answer that Question? It is a simple enough question. Why are you incapable of answering it, do you suppose?
DEBATE #3 -- Voluntary cannibalism
I have my own answer, of course, rigorously foundationalized in the Bible (as is the entire constitution of Christian Libertarianism). But before I proceed, let me hear your answer -- "Is it a True Fact that Roman Catholics eat real human flesh and drink real human blood? Do you, or do you not? Should such eating and drinking of real human flesh and blood be OUTLAWED, or should it be Legal?"
Why do you not just answer that Question? It is a simple enough question. Why are you incapable of answering it, do you suppose?
DEBATE #4 -- Private Intoxication on Private Property.
Alcohol, Hashish, Opium, and other powerful Intoxicating Drugs were well-known and commonly-used in the ancient Near East. When God wrote the Civil Law for Israel, however, Intoxication was not specified as a Civil Crime and there was NO Civil Penalty whatsoever for Private Intoxication.
Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God wrong?
This is the FOURTH time I have asked you this question, and STILL you have no answer whatsoever.
Why do you not just answer that Question? It is a simple enough question. Why are you incapable of answering it, do you suppose?
These are four simple, straightforward questions which I have asked you, and for which you have NO answer. And so I have a moral obligation to keep hammering you therewith, and I fully intend to do so.
It is a moral obligation for me, on exactly this basis... not going anywhere until I release you from Satan's grasp.
Let me tell you a little something about "Satan's grasp". Specifically, "Satan's grasp" over the matter of the Making of Law.
In modern America, the Making of Law has been given over almost entirely to "Satan's grasp" by the adoption of the philosophy of Moral Relativism -- If it feels good, do it.
And in this, the modern American Church has been very nearly as guilty as their liberal "opponents". In the modern American Church, there is practically ZERO attention paid to the necessity of foundationalizing one's Political Arguments upon the ground of Scripture. The modern American Church has adopted the very same Morally Relativistic approach to Law-Making as their liberal opponents -- If it feels good, do it.
Different things "feel good" to the liberals, and to the modern American Church. The liberals find that it "feels good" to them to permit Abortion on Demand, and the American Church (at least a portion thereof) find that it "feels good" to them to outlaw Abortion on Demand. But both camps are acting as Moral Relativists. Both Camps are implicitly denying the idea of an Absolute standard of Morality which clearly defines what Caesar must do and what he must not do; Both Camps are simply trying to "win enough votes" to impose their respective "Vision of the Annointed".
The idea that there is an Absolute standard of Morality which clearly defines what Caesar must do and what he must not do has entirely gone by the wayside.
And you have Yourself evidenced this fact.
I specifically challenged you (Post #354) on this matter...
You had NO response. You don't have ANY Biblical case to offer as to an Absolute standard of Morality which clearly defines what Caesar must do and what he must not do.
You are as MORALLY RELATIVISTIC as your liberal opponents... you do not have ANY Absolute Standard of Morality which you apply to the Extent of Caesar's Powers; you are basically voting what "feels right" to you, just like any other Moral Relativist -- if it feels good, do it.
Different things "feel good" to you, than to your Opponents; but without an absolute standard of Morality applied to the Extent of Caesar's Powers, you are as much a Moral Relativist as they are.
You claim to believe in "Absolute Morality". It appears to me that you just enjoy hearing yourself say the words... because you are certainly NOT acting as any kind of Absolute Moralist when it comes to any Absolute Moral Standard of an explicit and specific Biblical Case for the extents of Caesar’s Power, clearly outlining what Caesar must do, and what he must not do.
If you are not just another Moral Relativist, then prove me wrong. Answer my Questions.
If you can provide me with a Morally Absolute definition and explanation of your views on these questions, then I'll believe you are a Moral Absolutist, and I'll be interested in your Arguments.
If you CAN'T, then you are just another Moral Relativist to me -- voting your emotions, "if it feels good, do it."
And I am a Christian Libertarian.
A Moral Absolutist.
I have no use whatsoever for Moral Relativists, of any stripe.
My point is that the acts you refer to are not those I'm talking about, and there is a difference. I'm talking about everyday murder. Suppose you and I are neighbors and one day I get it into my head to go over to your home and slit your throat. My action would not have been tolerated in ancient Egypt, or Palestine, or feudal Japan, or China. It wouldn't have been tolerated by the Aztecs or the Incas. It would not have been acceptable to Eskimos or the aborigines of Australia or the Maoris of New Zealand.
The reason it would not be tolerated is because it is a dead end activity. It leads nowhere. Just as the path that begins with 2+2=5 ends nowhere, so does the path where any member can murder any other member. It is such a monstrously stupid idea, it is never even tried.
You speak of actions of a ruler/leader on behalf of the society. Those are different. Judges can't be held accountable for decisions they make in the capacity as judge. Not even for bad decisions or wrong decisions. They can be held accountable for theft or mayhem they do as an individual. They can be held accountable when they misbehave as a juddge. So, if Herod was acting as an individual and not a ruler, it would be murder. If Herod was misbehaving as ruler, that is overstepping his authority, he would be a murderer. If the structure of the society were such that his authority were absolute, well, that would be hard to overstep.
By the way, do you believe Ted Bundy was murdered? If Martha Stewart is found to have profited illegally from insider trading and her punishment includes a fine, would you consider that theft?
The point is, Pharaoh or Herod could and did order people to go slit the throats of babies because they were concerned, not about society, but by jealousy for their own rulership.
Your argument is becoming increasingly bizarre.
You're somehow saying that a Murder of the Innocents is OK, because such acts are within the pervue of "the duly constituted government." The governments of Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were also "duly constituted" -- yet I can't imagine you excusing their murderous regimes.
The question before us is: is it morally permissible for Herod or Pharoah to order the murder of infants. You're saying that it is morally permissible if "the government" is doing the killing.
Do you even realize what you're saying?
I know you haven't. Answer the question and we'll talk more. Would you allow cannibalism?
You say that you have answers to this question and other questions that are 'grounded in the Bible'. So what? Your libertarianism would not allow you to impose your views on an atheist, would it? Read that again...that is the fatal flaw in your "belief system".
You cannot answer the question about cannabalism without exposing the inherent contradiction of your belief system. You are holding that man needs Christ for salvation, but only needs 'enlightened self-interest' for his personal salvation. This is an outgrowth of the flawed Calvinist doctrines of sola fide and strict predestination.
Cannabalism, OP, yes or no?
Neither you nor OP will ever get this, will you? FACTS ARE NOT VALUES. REPEAT, FACTS ARE NOT VALUES.
To state otherwise means that you personally have solved the problem that has vexed moral philosophy for over 350 years. Ok? If you have, please go collect your award and your endowed chair at the Harvard Philosophy Department.
"Answer the question and we'll talk more". I was hoping that you would post such an implied Ultimatum to me, HV; and I rather expected that you would. Thanks for obliging me.
Buy your implied ultimatum, you have given absolute moral grounding to my criticisms of your refusal to answer the simple and explicit Questions which I have already and repeatedly posed to you.
Questions which you have refused to answer, and for which you have no response.
And why have you no response? Because, when it comes to the Political question of the Extent of Caesar's Powers, you really are just another Moral Relativist. "If it feels right, Vote it".
As I have already said, one of the marks of an "intelligent person" is the ability to clearly and precisely explain one's positions, and to exposit one's rationale therefore. And this is something which you simply ARE NOT doing. I have repeatedly asked you a number of comparatively simple questions, and you have repeatedly refused to answer them. Why is that? Are you INCAPABLE of clearly and precisely explaining your own positions, and expositing your rationale therefore? Because you are certainly acting like it.
And despite your refusal to engage in a good faith discussion (one characterized by charitable "give-and-take"), your refusal to answer my simple questions... you post the following to me:
Well, as I said before, I am not prepared to waste my time on a Decalogue-hating Moral Relativist who cannot even explain, exposit, and justify your own positions -- and who has repeatedly refused to do so.
I have been very disappointed in your Morally Relativistic refusal to explain, exposit, and justify your own positions. I have an answer for your "voluntary cannibalism" question, and with regard to the Roman Eucharist; an answer rigorously foundationalized in the Bible, as is the whole of the Christian Libertarian case. It probably won't be an answer you'll like, but I do not think it is the answer you expect.
But I won't play Poker with a Cheater. And I won't waste my time with a Decalogue-hating Moral Relativist who cannot even explain, exposit, and justify your own positions -- and who has repeatedly refused to do so.
And so I say to you, as a condition of proceeding:
Here are the Questions which I have already and repeatedly posed to you (and I have even charitably redacted our more recent controversy over Cannibalism/Eucharist):
BUT IF YOU WILL NOT, then it is obvious to me that you are nothing but a Decalogue-Hating Moral Relativist who cannot even explain, exposit, and justify your own positions.
And I am a Moral Absolutist. I shan't waste my time on Moral Relativists. The "if it feels good, Vote it" philosophy is nothing but an Abomination against the Law of God.
And if you cannot even explain, exposit, and justify your own positions, and answer FIRST the Questions which I have already and repeatedly posed to you, then that is all that you are.
If you have ANY MORAL ABSOLUTES whatsoever, then just Answer the Questions which I have already and repeatedly posed to you.
And then we'll proceed.
State it all you want. Repeat it, type it in all caps. You continue to miss the point.
Facts are what, exactly? Values are what, exactly? Conclusions based on beliefs. Remove the belief, change the fact/value.
Why not take mathematics, probably the most unassailable bastion of fact. You must begin with a belief: there exists an additive identity, 0, such that a+0=a for all a. You must believe in the existence before the rest of mathematics can follow. Using the beliefs associated with real numbers, there are no imaginary numbers. In real number mathematics there is no square root of -1. But, include different beliefs, and you can get even roots of negative numbers.
Beginning with some beliefs, you don't even get 2+2=4. Perfectly legitimate, and useful mathematics. Now where are the facts?
Perhpas my arguments appear bizarre because, as I've said, we are talking two different questions. You keep addressing the issue of actions taken on behalf of society as a whole. I'm speaking of actions taken by an individual member of society against another individual member of the society.
I've given you specific examples of why I see the two as different. Ted Bundy, murdered? Martha Stewart, if fined, theft? Actions taken by the state are not the same as actions taken by individual members.
We can disucss your issues, but, for me, only after we have addressed the notions I'm talking about becasue I'll just keep referring back to them anyway.
So, if you'd care to address this issue, please do so. Suppose you and I are neighbors and one day I get it into my head to go over to your home and slit your throat. My action would not have been tolerated in ancient Egypt, or Palestine, or feudal Japan, or China. So, do you argue that my action is simply relative? That given different circumstances, different times, different beliefs, my action of murder would be tolerable?
It has never happened, and for good reason. It can't happen, and for good reason. Funny thing is, even in illegitimate segments of larger societies, my actions would not be tolerated. Even in the Mafia, individual members aren't allowed to capriciously, kill another member.
Suppose you are Pharaoh -- then it would have been tolerated.
You're dancing on the razor's edge with this one, trying very hard to avoid the fact that you're willing to excuse murders committed on behalf of a government. We need not get into Ted Bundy's execution: the execution of 6 million Jews by the government of Nazi Germany will suffice. Are you really going to tell us that what they did was OK? If so, why? If not, why not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.