Replies

We're not talking about "opinions" in general, but about certain elements of morality, such as whether or not it's OK to kill somebody if you think it will benefit you in some manner. The problem is, without an injunction against murder imposed by some external "I AM," there's no logical reason for considering murder to be anything other than a matter of personal preference.

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.

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.

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).

I.E., I am arguing that 2 + 2 does equal 4, and that is Rationally Observable by the Atheist;

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

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.

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?