RE: Theists: how do you account for psychopaths?
May 25, 2018 at 9:07 pm
(This post was last modified: May 25, 2018 at 9:07 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(May 24, 2018 at 7:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(May 24, 2018 at 6:30 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: If you think I haven't stretched myself on that rack, you are sorely mistaken. Since you mentioned moral Platonism, I will say that Plato has been a huge influence upon my ethics, second only perhaps to Spinoza.
Your "infinite regression" is nothing new. Plato covers it in Book II of the Republic. A well-ordered soul demands cohesion with the truth. The truth is that there is an objectively discernible good.
The issue with your moral quandary is that you assume there is no underlying truth... that there is no answer to the question "Why is that wrong?"--there is an answer.
My last sentence was a bit inaccurate. You think there IS an answer.
Why is that wrong?
-because God.
To me, that answer is incoherent. It dodges the question and confuses the issue and in no way represents moral objectivity.
I'd be curious to hear about this, if you dont mind me asking.
Playing devil's advocate here, why is murder objectively wrong?
So the answer to this is not an easy one. And my reason is philosophical (though hopefully it's clear by now I don't use big, obtuse words when I philosophize). Still, your question is a tall order, and I have broken into three questions. Please choose which of the three is the sticking point for you (or if more than one is, choose more than one).
1) Is anything right or wrong at all? (metaethics- I think this is what you really want to know.).
2) Why is murder wrong? (this is what you asked, but without me filling in #1, the answer to this may be dissatisfying).
3) Even assuming that it can be demonstrated that murder is wrong, why should I not murder someone if I can easily get away with it? ("If God is dead, everything is permitted"-Dostoevsky).
