(April 16, 2012 at 4:21 am)genkaus Wrote: It makes a difference if you assert morality based on natural law. You are saying that things tend to move towards coherence and unity as a part of their nature and that this principle forms the basis of a universal morality. It definitely makes a difference if this principle is simply a matter of POV.We have previously agreed that reality is that which exists independent of individual perceptions. In the common analogy, where some see the glass half empty, others see the glass half full.
Just to me clear, I'm not asserting natural law. As such we will always see strife and conflict.
What I see in the natural world are local and imperfect expressions of the ultimate reality. The All is complete, or one, which means it has integrity. Harmony is currently a bit of a stretch and for now, a working hypothesis.
(April 16, 2012 at 4:21 am)genkaus Wrote: You are avoiding the question. Yes, it is my choice and I'm not being compelled to choose. So why should I choose your moral code of integrity and harmony? That would require another moral code that would to make the choice by - which automatically makes yours non-universal.Not fair. You're setting up an infinite regress. If I set forth a standard, then you say a standard is needed to choose the standard. If I give a standard for choosing a standard, then you'll want a standard for the standard for choosing a standard. That would get us nowhere.
Having a standard to choose still means you can choose not to recognize the standard. If I set forth objective standard by which to judge actions, anyone can still say, "Why 'should' I accept that standard?" You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
An objective moral standard would be a universally applicable something to which anyone could point as a guide for an ethical life and allows for rational discussion about how to apply it. One could still reject it, but idealy, if the standard were truly objective, one could not supply a good reason not to follow it.
This is the point where I return to Aristotle's 'Nichomachean Ethics.' Everyone pursues happiness because it is the good that all desire. To me the problem is not whether a moral standard exists (harmonious integrity or similar) or even the reason (happiness) for following it. The problem is recognizing the standard in a given situation and how it applies.
