Originally posted by shogun12
This is brainwashing, substituting the long standing norm in our country of a reliance on the Judeo Christian ethic with moral relativism and secular
humanism. With the benifit of hindsight, I found this to be true. But this is only a simple example.
The main concern I have currently when considering any debate, is to establish the core beliefs of the opposition or, the rules of engagement. Simply
put, without a belief in "absolute right and wrong" on both sides, there can be no serious debate. If the truth is relative then the rules can be
changed to suit the occasion.
The belief in "absolute right and wrong" depends on a higher moral authority to whom one is going to to have to be accountable at some point. If
there is a way to establish 'right and wrong' without this belief, I'd be interested to know how.
The tea parties are proclaiming that there is a right and a wrong and to say a thing is wrong does not mean you're a racist, bigoted hater, amongst
other things, and incapable of love.
(we're really tired of hearing that)
The truth is not relative, the truth is the truth.
FattyZ
You're opinion is unfortunately the norm, and I feel is part of the reason why people are incapable of critical thinking.
Firstly, truth is personal and subjective, it is the basis of belief. People believe things because they are of the misguided opinion that truth is
absolute, generic and part of the fabric of reality.
It certainly does not appear to be so.
If we regard science as a method to establish what is, and what is not - we find an interesting paradox. To establish something as being true - we
need to collect evidence. If we find evidence that causes a particular theory to fail, then we can say the theory is wrong or incomplete.
However no amount of evidence can prove that something is correct. This is because there is an infinite number of ways for something to fail, but
only one way for it to be correct.
So we must first discount all of the infinite ways something can be wrong before we are left with proof it is correct. Of course, doing an infinite
number of tests, and collecting an infinite amount of data is impossible for finite creatures.
If then, belief is founded upon truth - we can immediately see that its foundation is unsteady, and by no means secure.
Therefore to more wholly distinguish right from wrong, we have to move beyond truth and belief - we must understand. Understanding is being able to
collate as much data as possible into a working framework - this we could call a theory of reality.
It is not dependent on belief, or truth - but rather simply on the knowledge that we have to do the best with the senses and evidence that we have.
Then we have to ask upon what basis we divide thought, action and principle into right (just and moral) and wrong (unjust and immoral).
Without going into the justification, we can assume the highest morality is to preserve life at its highest level - life that is empowered, abundant,
free and healthy.
We also must realize we are going to make an arbitrary judgment, that human life is the highest order of life, and the most important. Whether or not
this is a 'universal truth' is not significant, because we belong to that species it is difficult to avoid the bias, and it is the judgment we make
that makes the most sense to us. A simple justification might be that because we have the power to control the environment, then we must have the
power to preserve it - therefore as the ultimate power for good - we must therefore promote our own survival in order to ensure the survival of the
whole.
To put this in simple terms, right is the greatest benefit to life, in the widest context.
However, the entire world therefore must be encompassed to define morality.
Everything around us is required for the survival of our species, and every living thing contributes to it. Therefore a judgment of right and wrong
must encompass both the human species, every other living thing - and the environment that supports them.
I think that individuals have a conscience that tells us this is so - I feel that even if we sometimes lack the intelligence to determine the greatest
good, we can still make fairly good judgments in that regard, without the need for complex laws, religious books, superstitious rules or the commands
of authority.
It is my opinion, it is my theory - it is not the truth, nor should it be considered the basis for a belief.
On the other hand, to dismiss it is to discount the ample evidence of our senses.
If right and wrong are based on Christian values, then non Christian countries, and atheists should be incapable of determining right from wrong - but
we can see many functional societies today which are largely atheist, or non Christian whom have working systems of law and high levels of social
justice.
To judge the world by our own truth is to remain ignorant, to truncate our own understanding, and to breed intolerance and bias.
