Replies

Good post.

Sorry, but I disagree - not that it shouldn't be posted, which is fine, but that the content is worth much.

This is all self-referential. "I know what's right, and if you don't believe me, just ask me." If a "self-evident" truth is not evident to (essentially) everyone, then what makes it "self-evident?" Why, it's self-evident if it's obvious to me, alone. That's all it takes.

I'm not convinced. More than that, it's not an argument that will convince anyone who wasn't already drinking the same bathwater, so why bother? And there is a great risk that if you buy into the "self-evident" - which is to say, "self-referential" - definition of morals you justify those who have their own view of what is moral. After all, it's 'evident' to them that they're right, and if you can't see it . . .

Every society that has lost its anchor to an enduring, documented system of morals has slid into immorality. Even now, millions of Americans think divorce is no big deal, yet a few years ago it was "self-evident" that a promise to "Love, Honor, and Obey until Death do you part" meant just that. But now it's "self-evident" that people who aren't happy together should break their vows and move on, at least, it's "self-evident" to a majority of the population.

I personally believe the best, enduring, documented basis for moral decisions is the Bible. Making that case is another argument, but I will maintain that without some written basis for morals, decay into licentiousness is inevitable. (And, no, I am not saying that all written codes are acceptable, just the opposite, but all unwritten - which is to say, "self-evident" - codes are demonstrably unable to prevent decadence.)

Good points. What you say is true. I recently had an argument with someone over Clinton's immoral behavior while in office. To me, the fact that he kept whipping it out every 30 seconds like it was the only lighter in a crack house was evidence enough. The other person made the point that you mentioned. Namely, who says that's immoral?

I didn't know where to go from there so I responded in the usual fashion. That is, I delivered a lightning fast jab to his stomach and then asked him if he considered what I'd just done to be "wrong."