There is no meaningful concept of "right" and "wrong" apart from an authority able to impose such. If enslaving you makes me happy, there's no meaningful sense in which you can say I'm "wrong" to do so. All you can do is squeal your disapproval.
Odd theory. -- Do you have a name for it? Does any school of philosophy condone slavery on the basis of the slavers happiness? Don't you agree that some variation of the 'golden rule' is evident in all of mans cultures?
You seem to have changed the subject. The question was to demonstrate the absolute existence of right and wrong,
No, you claimed " -- There is no meaningful concept of "right" and "wrong" -- I refuted that claim.
-- invoking no assertions of the existence of deity. You reply by telling me that lots of people have an opinion about morality. What does that have to do with the question?
-- Doesn't the 'rule' define right & wrong by simple self interest? -- IE - Everyone learns at their mothers breast that you don't bite the tit that feeds you, -- correct?
Utilitarianism states that I should obey a moral code, because it will benefit me to participate in a society that keeps said code. The argument hinges on self-interest.
The same self-interest implies that I should do what's best for me even when it harms you--as long as I can get away with it.
As I said you have an odd code. One that most criminals share.
Are lame ad homina the best you can do? For one thing, I'm not a criminal.
But you support some the reasoning used by the criminal mind, just above. That's the truth not ad homina.
For another, that is not my code. In particular, I do not assume the non-existence of deity. It is the atheist that simultaneously denies deity, but affirms the existence of a morality he cannot demonstrate.
Are lame, generalized ad homina on 'atheists' the best you can do?
Utilitarians reject this logial extension of their arguments, relying on the bare assertion that force is wrong. That's what libertarians do. What they don't do is prove that force really is "wrong", whatever "wrong" means exactly.
You seem to be the one confused on what is wrong, not libertarians. -- It's wrong to bite the tit that feeds you, isn't it?
You tell me. How exactly do you prove your claim? From ad hominem, you've graduated to the circular assertion that your conclusion is self-evident, and hence already proven. Well done.
Obviously, you are not a believer in our American concept that some truths are indeed self evident.
Well done.
___________________________________________
Given the premise that humans are ontological equals, they are "interchangeable". If we give A permission to kill B, we are implicitly giving B permission to kill A. If we do not wish to be killed, therefore, we must not kill.
Yep, thats a version of the 'golden rule'.. Congrats.
In other words, the philosopher assumes that a "moral" principle must be equally binding upon all. You can indeed start there, and derive the principle of non-use of force. The problem is, that simply replaces one axiom with another, equally unproven.
That last line is "axiom" gibberish. Do you really believe your own BS?
A self-interested utilitarian could equally derive the following alternative: since we are ontologically equal, morality must be the same for all. That moral principle is: we may each do anything within our power to seek happiness.
Ahh yesss, --- the rationalizations of the criminal mind are endless.
So tell me, do you have any contribution to make that isn't logically fallacious? If not, I guess I accept your ungracious confession that you cannot demonstrate the existence of an absolute morality.
Applying that morality, I will try to be happy, and so may you. I will try to kill you if I can and deem it necessary to my happiness; so may you.
Do you have any contribution to make that isn't logically fallacious?
I will usually refrain from killing you, because it's usually in my best interest not to; and so will you. From the same axiom, therefore, one derives a morality in which people mostly behave themselves. Not coincidentally, that's the morality that people actually follow.
Whatever turns you on sport. -- But as you said before, people who think that way usually die in jail, -- or on the street.