(August 7, 2015 at 10:08 am)lkingpinl Wrote:(August 7, 2015 at 10:00 am)robvalue Wrote: You keep saying "must be". Why? Because you demand it?Again, it seems you're simply uncomfortable with there not being one; that is not an argument.
And I explained at length why an arbitrary "standard" is meaningless, would you care to address any of my points?
No because logic dictates it
When you are judging something what are you doing? You are assessing it based on the accepted standard. When a judge determines if someone is guilty of breaking a law, he compares the act to the law itself (the standard).
This just strikes me as servile. If the standard was arrived at by human beings and you are a human being, might you not then be able to perform the assessment in a more immediate and autonomous way? Conscience is immediate, and if there is any link to an objective standard that hasn't been demonstrated.