yguy

Not exactly, because any code can be deconstructed logically. I would say the basis for morality is the same as the basis for all true things. Any true proposition ultimately appears to rest on nothing, and this "nothing" is the source for truth and morality.

Dune

-Any true proposition ultimately appears to rest on nothing, and this "nothing" is the source for truth and morality.-

Spontaneous generation of morality?

Maybe I dont get what you are driving at here, but that doesn't make any sense-

Please illustrate your idea?

yguy

Not exactly. As I said, it appears to be nothing. Truth and morality aren't written in stone, because stone eventually crumbles to dust. They're "written" in something decidedly more permanent.

I'm not sure I can do that directly...but do you see what I'm getting at when I say true statements are based apparently on nothing?

Dune

Its a very ambiguous statement to say that truth is written on nothing, but are more permanent than any material object.

If that was the case, that morality is a single truth untouchable that is self evident, arriving at humanities conciousness as an unyielding truth- that would indicate morality would be the same throughout the world and throughout all time and be the same in all society?

yguy

Exactly. There have been societies which condoned selective murder, as in human sacrifice, for instance, but it was wrong all the while they were doing it.

mhc

I think murder is a pretty easy one for the moral absolutist to attack.
How about abortion? Is it always wrong, or always right, or always right under certain circumstances and always wrong under others?
How about lying? Always wrong?
How about divorce?
How do we get access to the absolute and unchanging moral laws you speak of? Are they written somewhere?
I sure hope you don't say we know them intuitively, a cursory look around will deny that.

yguy

None of these things are always wrong, IMO, but human beings have it in them to discern when the are. For instance, if you were hiding a Jew in your basement in Nazi Germany, you knew that this was one time lying is OK.

The closest thing to that would be the Ten Commandments, IMO. Of course, Christ made a point of "violating" one of those Himself, showing they were not meant to be obeyed dogmatically.

My cursory look around tells me that most people don't WANT to know them, because they interfere with having all the sex they want, all the money they want, or whatever. Some even make a concerted effort NOT to know them.

Keith Russell

Earlier, I had said: In this sense, 'rights' as such don't exist in nature, but we realize that human beings should be treated in specific ways (which we term, 'rights') because human beings are independent, self-aware, volitional creatures, capable of reason.

and yguy replied:
yguy: How exactly does to conclusion follow from the premise? Murderers and pedophiles seem to have all those capabililities, but I would suggest that their right to life is debatable, to say the least.

Keith: yguy, I assumed that you meant that--because criminals' rights are 'debatable', as you say--that you thus questioned whether anyone has any rights to begin with.

So, I stated that: A person has to first have rights, before their rights may (by their own violation of another's rights) be seen as forfeit.

To which you replied:
y:If this is supposed to address my question, I fail to see how.

To which I replied:
K: yguy, you said that their 'right to life' is debatable.

Do you agree they had such a right, before they committed any crime?

And you answered:
y: Yes.

My move?

It seems we agree, do we not?

K

Keith Russell

yguy and mhc:

Why argue over arbitrary rules?

Rather than dogmatically asserted moral standards, why not advocate that it is better to follow ethical principles?

Keith.

sophie

hi ya gang,

with all the intellectual stuff passing around, I had a foolish notion.

Is it baby's right to be fed? If not can I cry now.