bobmax wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:57 pmAny law we set because we believe it to be a good, if we take it literally as the foundation of a system, it becomes an inevitable evil.
Because any law must be interpreted.
That is a strawman, I did not mention 'law' at all in this case nor anything to be taken literally as the foundation of system.
I stated,
"As such, if the moral standard abstracted is 'no killing of humans' to be use a guide for all humans, how can this be of a totalitarian, ethical states, the days of terror?"
The critical terms here are 'standard' and 'guide' and how can those terms denote 'evil'.
What is your definition for evil?
To me, evil [not-good] is related to any human acts or thoughts that are a net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
The moral facts as abstracted are therefore standards and guide for the individual[s] to improved their moral competence in their own time and circumstances on a natural and spontaneous basis.
And its interpretation derives in turn from "truths" which can never be laws themselves.
As stated above, there is no law and interpretation involved. There is only the drive for moral improvement against the standard.
The need not to kill is therefore only a generic indication, which must be included in each specific situation in order to verify its effective validity.
Because in the face of this commandment there may be other requirements, equally valid if not more, which would not enforce it.
For example, if taken literally, euthanasia would certainly be wrong. But then the absolute value of life would prevail over any trampled dignity, over suffering without hope.
Would it be fair?
Abortion would certainly be denied.
But what about woman's freedom then? Should a girl who has been raped necessarily give birth to the violence she suffered (as is actually happening in the US)?
Is the suicide really guilty?
Are you not even masters of your own life?
To what extent does the oppressed have to endure oppression if their only option is to get rid of the oppressor by killing him?
The 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is merely a standard as a guide, thus it is not a commandment.
At present, the majority are still active with their inherited beastly nature as such SOME will engage in killing of humans [murders, wars, suicide, euthanasia, abortion and the like]. In this circumstances there would be a need for just-wars and just-killings but such killings should not be expected to continue eternally.
When individuals and humanity are mindful of the standard [moral fact] they will realize there is a moral deviation between their actual evil acts and the moral standard. This will trigger and drive for improvements, i.e. reduction in evil acts.
ALL humans are also 'programmed' with the potential for continual improvement over their current state, as such, this potential [&
conscience] will drive them to improve their moral competence towards the standard.
If we start now on the drive for moral progress based on a moral FSK, we cannot expect results immediately but the results will flow significantly after say >50, >100 or >150 years later.
Don't dwell on the use of the verbs exist and to be.
It is in that copulation that what really matters is hidden.
Existence is what is most real. It's the same situation as you.
While being is what grounds it.
You ask me to prove existence and being.
Which are precisely what allows any possible proof!
Existence is the fact. Your situation. Which you can never ignore.
But since this situation, this existence, questions you directly, calls yourself into question, here is the awareness of Being.
That is, of the Truth.
Which allows existence.
We are doing philosophy here, thus there is a need to be more precise with the terms we used.
BMX:
"Existence is the fact"
Fact of what that is factual?
I am aware "
I-exists" but precisely,
'
I exists' as an
empirical self and person that is verifiable and justifiable as real [till mortality] at the least with common sense but more refined within the scientific FSK.
This is a fact and factual.
However there is the hasty and jumping to conclusion by the majority [mostly theists] who insist,
"I exists" as an independent 'soul' [a transcendental self] that will survive physical death and will go to heaven or hell somewhere.
This is not factual but merely believing in an illusory soul thus delusional.
Here is the possibility where believers [especially Islam and its believers] could exterminate the human species with WMDs based on the illusory beliefs.
See the difference and why the need to be more rigoristic with the terms used, 'existence' in this case?