Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
OK, but part of the case I laid out was that was that there is a definite moral principle in what I was describing. Were you accepting that, too?

What, that it's wrong to hurt people? I've never (seriously) disputed that, though. I don't run around pushing over old ladies and looking for puppies to kick, you know ;)

The only thing I take issue with is the foundation of that statement, where the notion of the wrongness of it comes from in the first place. I can't disprove that morality is a universal truth, or that God is somehow responsible for the nature of what we call morality. All I can try to do is show that neither one is necessary, that alternate, perhaps more parsimonious, explanations exist.

777 posted on 05/30/2002 7:56:51 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies ]


To: general_re
All I can try to do is show that neither one is necessary, that alternate, perhaps more parsimonious, explanations exist.

And my dispute would be that if these alternate explanations rely exclusively on objective and pragmatic criteria (survival of the species, functionality of society, etc.), then they're seriously lacking.

778 posted on 05/30/2002 8:02:25 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson