Perhaps more so that you realized? ;-)
> Jim's argument is that materialist morality is neither objective, logical,
> or consistent. I don't disagree with the first point, since morality by
> definition is something that cannot be objective.
By your personal definition, which may possibly be invalid.
> However, I have let the
> last two slip when I could have dealt with them. So let me do so. First of
> all, let me reiterate that I don't deny there are aspects of my morality which
> are subjective. However, there are also many aspects that are logical and
> consistent. I will explain how.
>
> To start with, let me explain again the basis of my morality. I am what
> appears to
> be a conscious being with emotions and feelings. That is, I experience things
> which seem to me to be consciousness, emotions and feelings. Are these things
> the result of an immaterial spirit, or entirely naturalistic phenomena? I don't
> know for sure, but I do know that they are just as real to me either way.
>
> Now, I also know that other human beings (as well as certain other species of
> animals) exhibit behaviors that are overwhelmingly indicative that they, also,
> possess consciousness, feelings, and emotions like (or at least very similar
> to) myself. Do I know this with absolute certainty? No, I don't know anything
> with absolute certainty. But it is about as compelling as anything can possibly
> be, so I can safely treat it as a fact. I could be the only conscious being
> alive. Perhaps everyone else is just a robot or a dumb animal. Or, for that
> matter, perhaps all of life is just one grand hallucination that I alone am
> experiencing. But these are far-fetched notions, and so logic compels me to
> accept that other people are also conscious, self-aware, and emotional beings.
>
> Now, I know what it feels like to be hurt. I don't like it. Again, I don't know
> what this emotion really *is* in a physical sense, but I know what it feels
> like.
> Jim may call this subjective and therefore irrelevant, but he and I both know
> that nothing is more compelling than one's own feelings. So I cannot deny
> that there
> is a thing called "hurt" that I don't like to have inflicted on me. And, since I
> know that other people appear in every way to have feelings much like myself, I
> know that to inflict hurt on them would be to do the same thing to them as
> is done
> to me when I am hurt. And, since I know without a shadow of a doubt what
> *that* feels
> like, I don't want to do it to another person.
>
> Now, what about those who will argue that others do not really have feelings? Is
> this a logically compelling argument? Of course not, because, as I have pointed
> out, all of the external evidence of human behavior indicates that they *do*. So
> the most rational and moral course of action for me is to behave in a way that,
> shall we say, maximizes the amount of happiness in the universe.
This begs the question - why is it the "most raitonal and moral course
of action" to behave that way?
> There we go. The smallest details are laid out for everyone to see. No
> "moral capital"
> has been borrowed from any other belief system. And, more importantly, it works.
Russell, my respect for you has grown considerably since the time I read
your disparaging remarks against Bill. You have clearly laid out
something quite personal, and none of us have a right to condemn you for
holding on to your views. I want you to know that I respect your take on
morality even though I totally disagree with it because I see obvious
difficulties and inconsistencies.
However, I must apologize if I had offended you. You are certainly
entitled to your opinions, and treated with the respect and dignity of a
fellow a human being. I don't think Bill or anyone can change your stand
significantly, especially through an impersonal mode of communication
such as this.
For the Christians tuning in, I would like to remind us all that the
best (perhaps only acceptable way) to demonstrate the reality of God is
through love, relationship, and behavior. Words alone, particularly
impersonal like this is, cannot change a human heart. If you hope to
reveal to Russell the reality and love of our Lord, you better find out
where he lives and get on the next flight to meet him in person. Better
yet, invite him over to your home and your life, so that he may see how
God really works. Words without actions, like an empty pot, just make
annoying noises.