"That doesn't mean you can't believe in them, just that we can't prove them."
Precisely. And without proof, it becomes purely academic.
Precisely. And without proof, it becomes purely academic.
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: MoveOn.Org [slowguy]
[ In reply to ]
Re: MoveOn.Org [vitus979]
[ In reply to ]
"Let's try to stay on track with our newest philosopher, commodore. jhendric is talking about objective truths, and you're starting to bring up questions of how much subjective guilt one might bear when violating those truths. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish."
Actually, if murder is always wrong, as an objective truth, then it must be wrong regardless of the circumstances surrounding the act. I'm not talking about guilt, but rather about mathematics. Is the murder of one person to prevent the murder of more than one person no longer wrong because the numbers work out in favor of a higher resulting number of living people? Aside from the issue of continuing to narrow the definition of murder until you get something we can agree on, there is the issue of proving that murder is actually wrong. How do we know that the killing of one human by another without justification is actually wrong? We believe it to be so, and most people would agree, but where is the proof of this "universal truth?"
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Actually, if murder is always wrong, as an objective truth, then it must be wrong regardless of the circumstances surrounding the act. I'm not talking about guilt, but rather about mathematics. Is the murder of one person to prevent the murder of more than one person no longer wrong because the numbers work out in favor of a higher resulting number of living people? Aside from the issue of continuing to narrow the definition of murder until you get something we can agree on, there is the issue of proving that murder is actually wrong. How do we know that the killing of one human by another without justification is actually wrong? We believe it to be so, and most people would agree, but where is the proof of this "universal truth?"
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
Re: MoveOn.Org [slowguy]
[ In reply to ]
if murder is always wrong, as an objective truth, then it must be wrong regardless of the circumstances surrounding the act.
OK, I say that murder is alway objectively wrong. The circumstances surrounding that objectively wrong act, however, have a great deal to do with the murderer's subjective degree of guilt.
Is the murder of one person to prevent the murder of more than one person no longer wrong because the numbers work out in favor of a higher resulting number of living people?
Some would argue so. Some in here have, in fact, argued exactly that. I, on the other hand, wouldn't. I'd say the murder of one person is still objectively wrong. The murderer in this case might not be subjectively as culpable, but it's still objectively wrong.
We believe it to be so, and most people would agree, but where is the proof of this "universal truth?"
Let's stick with "objective," rather than "universal," which is already getting rather fuzzy.
An objective truth doesn't rely on our ability to prove it for its existence, any more than any other reality relies on our ability to prove it for its existence.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
OK, I say that murder is alway objectively wrong. The circumstances surrounding that objectively wrong act, however, have a great deal to do with the murderer's subjective degree of guilt.
Is the murder of one person to prevent the murder of more than one person no longer wrong because the numbers work out in favor of a higher resulting number of living people?
Some would argue so. Some in here have, in fact, argued exactly that. I, on the other hand, wouldn't. I'd say the murder of one person is still objectively wrong. The murderer in this case might not be subjectively as culpable, but it's still objectively wrong.
We believe it to be so, and most people would agree, but where is the proof of this "universal truth?"
Let's stick with "objective," rather than "universal," which is already getting rather fuzzy.
An objective truth doesn't rely on our ability to prove it for its existence, any more than any other reality relies on our ability to prove it for its existence.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Ahh, now you have someone qualified to discuss this with. As I am getting back to training for my IM, I will just sit back and watch, for a while at least.....but I'll just add a "yeah, what he said" to jhendric's position on this subject.
cholla