What I did is not typical [common sense] but I believe it is logical and valid on a rational and philosophical basis.
Here is some definition of the term 'continuum';
- Continuum:
: a range or series of things that are slightly different from each other and that exist between two different possibilities
His motives for volunteering lie somewhere on the continuum between charitable and self-serving.
a continuum of temperatures ranging from very cold to very hot
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/continuum
- Continuum
something that changes in character gradually or in very slight stages without any clear dividing points:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /continuum
Thus the continuum of greyness is;
100% grey is 50% black and 50% white.
10% grey is 90% white and 10% black.
90% grey is 90% black and 10% white.
Similarly in mixing black and white,
100% blackness is 100% black
90% blackness is 90% black and 10% white.
50% blackness is 50% black and 50% white.
10% blackness is 10% black and 90% white.
We can apply the above formula for 'whiteness'.
Now 'good' vs 'evil' are in contrasting opposites just like black vs white.
100% goodness is 100% good
90% goodness is 90% good and 10% evil.
50% goodness is 50% good and 50% evil.
10% goodness is 10% good and 90% evil.
So,
100% evilness is 100% evil
90% evilness is 90% evil and 10% good.
50% evilness is 50% evil and 50% good.
10% evilness is 10% evil and 90% good.
The point is human nature is such that all humans are programmed with potential of 'good' and 'evil' within their DNA.
For example, regardless how we condemned Hitler is evil to the hilt, there is nevertheless some good within him relatively.
I have often apply the above in moral discussions.
For example,
a person is said to be 90% good,
but within the associated complementarity of good and evil,
I can also said the person is 10% evil.
The justification is, any person recognized as very good, i.e. say 90% good is still capable of committing evil in various forms.
Another example is the complementarity of fact vs non-fact.
What is a fact is a claim conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The credibility of a fact is conditioned upon the credibility of the specific FSK.
Thus,
100% fact is 100% factual [highly credible FSK]
90% fact is 90% factual and 10% non-fact.
50% fact is 50% factual and 50% non-fact.
10% fact is 10% factual and 90% non-fact [i.e. of the lowest credibility].
In this case, I can state the divine claims can be 'facts' but they are merely 5%-fact or 1%-fact.
Therefore there can be divine moral facts but they are at best 1-5% fact or 1-5% credibility.
Note Richard Dawkins used the same concept in his Belief-in-God scale, i.e.
If a theist belief in God is rated from 1 [belief] to 7 [non-belief] then his non-belief is rated 6/7.
So based on the concept of a continuum, is there are problem in my claim,
Therefore there can be divine moral facts but they are at best 1-5% fact or 1-5% credibility.
It may seem weird to many, but I believe the claim is very logical, rational and valid.
The continuum concept is very useful for moral deliberations.
Views?
ETA:
Morality: Objectivity on a Continuum
viewtopic.php?t=40972