Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:22 am
Morality is only a devolution of conscience. Since Man living in Plato’s cave has become so attached to the shadows on the wall, the potential to experience objective conscience which responds to objective human meaning and purpose had to be sacrificed to pragmatism defended by relative morality..
The author uses the question of abortion to explain relative morality. However objective conscience is an inner appreciation of respect for the cycles of life as an objective value. We have sacrificed our potential to experience conscience for the sake of defending pragmatic egoistic beliefs.
Relative morality is a quality of life in Plato’s cave while objective conscience is an attribute of conscious life beyond cave restrictions. As dwellers within Plato’s cave we restrict ourselves to arguments over relative morality.
Nick_A: Your statement is an eloquent plea to abandon the superiority of righteousness of believing in objectivist morality.
All one has to consider, in order to see my point, is that abortion is accepted by many social milieu and by individuals in it, who are ACCEPTED AB OVO to be morally flawless characters in and by the society they form.
If a person thinks of him- or herself as a morally correct person, and society agrees with this perception, then it is accepted that this person is morally correct. If this person is at the same time believes that abortions are not morally defunct, then instead of arguing that an error has been made, inasmuch as this person's correct morality is in clash with some absolute, unerring, infallible morality, then it is time to consider that between the following three stances not only one can be wrong and the other two right, but all can be either wrong or right:
1. Absolute morality is the one that a person fully supports (any individual's inner or moral milieu) -- this is the case of Nick_A by his stringent rejection of abortion, and declaring it across the board wrong only due to his moral upbringing, and only due to a difficulty of accepting anything outside his sphere of fossilized values.
2. Absolute morality is not defined, but defineable, can be found (except as of yet, we, humans, have not discovered yet what it is); this is what Nick_A believes is his own moral system, and which he mistakenly, in a hifolutin' self-absorbed and self-effacing fashion elevates to almost super-human superiority in Nick_A's own usual way;
or
3. Absolute morality does not exist, instead, instead, morality is a functionality that serves a purpose or many purposes, for both individual satisfaction and for social functionality of a society.
Wong bets on the third point, rejecting the first two points, while he agrees that his point can't be proven either, without using confirmation bias to some degree as well.