yguy

To the extent that people are inclined away from morality, we have to, but people should be getting more and more in touch with their own inner morality, so that less and less are such codificaitons needed.

Yes, obeying our consciences would be the ideal.

90% of the problems in that area could be eliminated if people would forbear to jump to conclusions about others' beliefs.

The more able you are to admit it when you're wrong, the more able you are to know when you're right.

Philosoft

I'm just trying to understand the thrust of your argument. It seems to be consistent with a universal moral Truth, individual moral truths, and all points in between.

Well, then what I would be telling you is not one of your "ineffable" truths, by definition.
Then you don't have an evidential case for a universal Truth.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

yguy said that 'obeying our consciences would be the ideal'.

I disagree.

'Conscience' varies from individual to individual. One person may believe that they are 'following their conscience' by publishing a pornographic book. Another person might believe that such a book is obscene, and that their conscience dictates that they refuse to publish the book.

Lawyers on both sides of a case often claim to be 'following their consciences'.

So, I believe conscience is a red herring, a chimera that--ultimately--defines both definition and meaning.

K

yguy

True, but you could awaken me to the realization of that ineffable truth within myself.

I don't see how that follows from what I said.

yguy

Baloney. It may tell different people to do different things, but like the sunlight which makes grass grow in one way and trees in another, it's all the same.

But we all know that most of the time they're lying, to themselves at least. What passes for conscience in many people is really hypocritical self-justification.

Even if they are following their consciences, it does not follow that the battle between them ends, because others are involved.

Now how about answering this one:

K: Dogmatic moral 'rules' are arbitrary, divinely 'revealed', etc.

But, one can rationally deduce ethical principles from the facts of reality.

y: For example...?

Philosoft

Does that not strike you as something of a stretch?
Sorry, I was in a hurry. As long as there are evidential counterexamples, you won't be able to make a case for the universality of whatever it is you propose.

yguy

Not in the least. The word is not the thing; neither is the true statement the truth it expresses.

Philosoft

And around we go...

I guess we're at an impasse as your argument is quite circular.

yguy

I don't see how.

Philosoft

Well, you appear to be back to square one, which means you are assuming your conclusion in response to my developing argument.