Replies

You wrote: “That means you still have to provide the proof for these values upon which you’ve conditioned the truth of the value of ‘natural law’.”

The values which I have listed are good because they are ultimately conducive to securing the life of every human being and creating conditions where this life in increasingly less subject to the perils of both the natural world and the world of other men.

So, if we take my argument far enough, we will find that it hinges on the following proposition: “Living life is superior to not living life.”

This is a proposition which reason itself compels all human beings to agree to — because it is a proposition which they implicitly embrace in the process of arguing or even in the process of living itself. If it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live, then we have our basis for a rational, secular morality.

I illustrate why this is in “The Implicit Decision to Live: The Immorality of Suicide and Forced Termination of Life”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/280318/the_implicit_decision_to_live_the_immorality.html

If life is good, then progress and peace and liberty are good, which implies that the natural law — which brings all these about — is good.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Well done! You have had the discipline to follow your conditional statements on out to:

"“Living life is superior to not living life.”

However..

You then add your conditionals for it: "because it is a proposition which they implicitly embrace in the process of arguing or even in the process of living itself."

And further, a summary or rephrasing, I believe:

"If it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live, then we have our basis for a rational, secular morality."

Then working your way back to the intitial value statment: "If life is good, then progress and peace and liberty are good, which implies that the natural law — which brings all these about — is good."

I sincerely applaud your discipline and effort and reply here.

My reply on your propositions:

"If it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live..

I believe this is a false premise. People can and do logically choose non-life. We need not limit this to suicide, we could choose T. Paine as an example of one whose value of life was conditioned by a higher value. Or from Christian ethics: "No greater love hath man than this.."

So, working further, your premise:

“Living life is superior to (better than) not living life.” is not proven. For the reason above. Under some conditions, it's not.

Now, you could choose to make the statement non-conditional, thus:

All other conditions being equal, "Living life is better than not living life.”

This would make it a non-conditional, also termed an absolute, truth statement. This would remove the need to continue proving each new condition used, each "because."

However you would leave the realm of pure reason/logic at this point and accept as an ultimate value as true which you haven't proven using the self-selected limits of a rational, secular morality.

In summary, I believe your proof of "Life is Good" fails because it's premises fail. However, you may see by now, that even it they did not, even HAD you succeeded in proving "Life is Good" because.. you would still need to prove the supporting conditional statements. For example:

If I were to accept that "it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live," as true. This would not finish your task.

That something is logically impossible to escape choosing does not make it, in itself, "good" or "right" in ethical terms. This has not been proven logically.

I do think that all ethical systems eventually reach the point of "Life is Good". But it is the unique burden of a system that claims solely to be rational and secular to continue on. And provide the proof.

I really do appreciate your continuation here and look forward to any reply you have to mine.