Except that it rests on one HUGE assumption: the existence of the Judeo-
Christian God. If that cannot be proven (and it hasn't), then the logic
goes right out the window and Christian morality becomes just as subjective
as any other. And what really scares me is what would happen to our society
if we teach our children to hang their philosophy on the existence of an
unprovable supernatural entity; one that, sooner or later, some or many of
them will grow up to question the existence of. If one's only motivation for
not killing is the believe in a universal God, what happens when one's belief
in that God is challenged? Or if one comes to the conclusion that that God
doesn't value non-Christian lives as highly as Christian ones?
><<Just because an individual can, given a philosophical system,
>provide sufficient personal reasons for not e.g. killing his neighbor does
>not mean that the philosophical system offers a logical ground for universal
>morality.>>
>
>Again, right on. That's exactly what this debate has been all about, obdurate
>obstinancies to the contrary notwithstanding!
>
>Thanks for a great summation.
Or, rather, a half-summation. What Rich fails to note is that there can
be no "logical ground for universal morality" -- *any* morality. It is
a contradiction in terms, because morality deals with issues that are
completely beyond the realm of logic. The ironic thing is that it took an
atheist/materialist to realize this.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.