Dubious wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:11 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:20 am
Dubious wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:20 am
There is really no mystery in any of this.
Then I fear you've misunderstood the question.
The question is not, "Can people have feelings about moral values?" because clearly they can have all kinds of feelings. The question is, "How can one prove to oneself that one's moral feelings and values are justified
rather than merely arbitrary or contingent?"
There is nothing to decide that except what a civilisation collectively or a person privately decides is moral.
Not a good answer. Both societies and persons disagree...in fact, they often disagree with each other, for that matter -- individuals within a society disagreeing with their own society's morals, let alone with any other society's.
So if that's what you've got, you've got the problem, not a solution.
As I said there is no mystery to any of this. This is especially the case if, as you state, the Big Bang is simply an accident which presupposes that everything in it is also an accident including all of its gods.
You believe in multiple, created gods?
But you still haven't said what in your mind constitutes evil as an independent entity and what power it was that proclaimed it!
Sure I did. I said it was revealed by God. As a Christian Theist, that means by way of the Biblical record.
Your revealed version of morality isn't any more certain than any other of the more secular types simply because you cannot truly know what you accept as revealed must, because it's so claimed or written, be concluded as true. You have only anchored yourself to its so-called revealment which was your own arbitrary choice to make.
Not "arbitrary." There are criteria. But you're not wrong to think that faith, based on criteria, is going to play a role in any decision that this or that morality is better or ultimately correct. It's not something anyone's going to get on cold facts (Hume already argued that cogently).
Now, I understand why you think that's true, that morality is necessarily merely arbitrary. From a secular perspective, you have to believe that, because not believing that would, by definition, make you stop being agnostic or Atheistic. But let me put the contrary to you: what basis do you really have for such a conclusion. What if God HAD revealed what was morally right, but some people were refusing to accept it? How would you refute that possibility on conclusive evidence? Of course, you can't. So you're going to have to believe something, launching it from the best, most coherent evidence you can find.
In summary, morals remain relative even when they are chosen as revealed and inviolable since the proof of its inviolability can never be made manifest.
What's making you think that is only the mistaken belief that we have "inviolable" proof of ANYTHING.
But we do not. As Descartes showed, skepticism takes us down to nothing more than "cogito ergo sum
," I think, and I exist, but gives us no reason for more. So skepticism will not reveal anything to us: to know anything at all, even in science, we're going to have to be content with the best available partial evidence, plus at least a little bit of well-invested faith.
That's the human lot; one can accept it or pretend it's not so, but it will be anyway. Nobody gets home without faith.
So again, how do you know what "evil" is?