conan said:
greetings Don-
That was basically the question Plato was trying to answer when he presented the concept of "forms". The fact of the matter is that we do know what a car is and our identity of a car based on a limited, but certian criterion. So you seem to be arguing that "cars" don't exist, despite the use of them. Likewise, morality exist based on the criterion of someting being right or wrong, which cause requires a standard. So do you suppose the moral came before standard?
Hi,
Has there ever been a standard for a car? Can you explain the exact characteristics of a kind? That's impossible. Well, your idea of morality is wrong. As a definition of a car cannot be given, so can morality not have one.
You cannot define a "kind", a.k.a. genus. Split every object until you have electrons and protons. Every proton and electron has a different structure of quarks within itself. For one argument I agree with Aristotle and that is the inexistance of a "kind".
Every tree has a different number of cells, leaves, sticks, etc. Every man is unique. What is a "kind"?
You do know what morality is and you do know what a car is. Morality can not be restricted to the content of a book or religion. Just like every man is unique, morality changes that way in each situation, thus you cannot give an accurate explanation for it. But you do know what "morality" is, as you do know what a "man" is.
conan said:
One must? Is that an absolute standard? Would it be wrong to do otherwise?
What is the difference between a car and a bicycle? You do know what a car is, but you can't explain. Explain for me what a car is. Every word inside the definition must be explained again.
conan said:
Are you saying the claims you have made are false and you are ignorant?
Man fails to explain an object or concept. Language is a circle of built definitions, as every definition requires another series of. But still you do know what a car is. So I assume you can know what morality is as well.
We have to aim for the best solution.
Is that absolutely true?
That is like saying "All statements are false". You are in a whirlwind of circular reasoning my friend.
With an absolute view, I meant that the Bible explains morality and its knowledge is finite - thus not subjected to change or deeper analysis. The Bible contains too few examples and I think religion has nothing to do with morality. A definition can never be finished, because it has to be enhanced over and over.
That way morality can neither be achieved; we must aim for it. You and I are not moral, are we? No one is.
If my congressman proposed the legalization slavery and wife beating, how many sides should I view that from?
I didn't express myself good enough here.
We must look from all sides and see which conscient being has disadvantage at a certain issue. Obviously women would have a disadvantage. If you would look from 1 side only, wouldn't there be danger you view it from the wrong side?
In order to achieve your point of view, you think as next:
- Congressman allows slavery and wife beating: good for him
- Women: harm
We simply have to run through all possible views in order to view for who it is a disadvantage. We have to eliminate.
I am convinced you haven't spent near enough time meditating and processing that question.
If I watch television and see millions of people die. Yet, after I go drink a cup of thea, would you call me moral? Then you have not viewed it from all sides.
God created me - according to religion - so he must have allowed this "dis-morality". However, I exclude his existance. I can't understand why people believe it. I am not against it. Everyone is free to believe what they want, but I simply think they haven't considered it deeply enough.
I believe in the existance of anything supernatural and if it would exist, it would be immoral. That is how I view it.
- DonRicardo