Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark Chance" data-source="post: 1316042" data-attributes="member: 2795">Very commendable of you. There are few things more distressing than a dogmatic skeptic. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Of course, I cannot help but note that we ought to believe things that are true because they are true, not because they are appealing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Because of the law of noncontradiction. Y and not-Y cannot both be true, all things being equal (and that is an important qualifier). Now, this doesn't rule out the possibility that different contexts can affect the morality (or at least moral culpability) of certain actions, but the basic logic still stands.And since you admit that that migh be a defect in your vision, at least there's still hope for you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Then it is a statement that speaks beyond its competency. It's akin to someone using, for example, a religious text which was not intended to be a scientific account as a tool for refuting a scientific text, or vice versa someone trying to use a scientific text to refute a religious text as a religious text.But, to me at least, that sounds like question begging. It can be demonstrated that it is at logical that there could be such a thing as a universal moral principle. Therefore, the existence of such a thing is not impossible. OTOH, it seems that arguments against the existence of any universal moral principles at all are circular, illogical, or based on perception.I've puzzled over this question for many, many years. I've yet to hear a single convincing argument supporting the proposition 'There are no universal, objective moral principles.' OTOH, I've heard plenty of solid arguments refuting that proposition. Of course, there are difficulties with all arguments, but it does seem to me that the preponderance of evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that there are at least some universal moral principles, even if our knowledge of said principles is shoddy at best.Degree in history with minors in philosophy, theology, and English here. Desparately trying to find a way to pay for furthering my education, but I'm so underpaid it ought to be a crime. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /></blockquote>

Verification