>>ALL morals that we have, regardless of the source, regardless of whether they are objective or subjective, are filtered through humans. As such, we can never be absolutely sure that they are free from error. All of your “moral governance”, “reasoning and responsibility“, “self referential”, “IS-OUGHT” talking points are just that. Talking points. They are not arguments against what I have said about the fact that ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned. Unless, of course, you suggest that we shouldn’t use the reasoning capabilities that we were given. >>
This is of course reflective of common views and agendas in our civilisation and so it is appropriate to reply, taking time to address key issues at worldviews level:
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
Could you be in error that you are conscious?
If so, what is there that is aware to regard the possibility of error? (And this is about the bare fact of consciousness, you could be a brain in a vat manipulated by electrified probes to imagine yourself a man in the world and you would still be undeniably certain of the bare fact of your own consciousness.)
Speaking of, that error exists is also undeniably true. Let E be that claim, then put up the attempted denial ~E. In other words ~E means it is an error to say that error exists. So, E is undeniable.
2 + 3 = 5 is also self-evident and undeniable:
|| + ||| –> |||||
In general, SET’s are truths that — once we are able to understand i/l/o our experience of the world — are seen to be so, and to be necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial.
Such lie at the heart of rationality, through the manifest fact of distinct identity. Take some distinct A like a bright red ball on a table, so the world W is:
W = {A|~A}
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Likewise from distinct identity two-ness is a direct corollary and from that the natural counting numbers and much of the logic of structure and quantity follows — i.e. Mathematics (which is NOT primarily an empirical discipline). As a start, I use the von Neumann construction:
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
In particular, that something like E is knowable to utter certainty on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial means, truth exists as what says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Similarly, this is warranted to utter certainty and so some things can be known to utterly, absolutely cretain degree. Therefore any worldview that imagines that such knowledge is impossible collapses in fatal, central error. Subjectivism, relativism and post modernism, I am looking straight at you.
Going further, following the Kantians, many have been induced to imagine that there is an ugly gulch blocking us from knowledge on the external world of things in themselves. Ever since F H Bradley over 100 years ago, this is known to be false. For, the claim to know of such an ignorance gap is to claim to know something of the outside world, i.e. the claim is self referential and incoherent.
A plumbline
We may then infer freely, that we may and do know things about reality external to our interior lives. Though, as error exists is equally certain, we must be careful in warrant. As a first test, plumbline truths will help us. And for many things a lesser degree of warrant is more than good enough. For example on serious matters, we may have moral certainty, that it would be irresponsible to act as though some A were false, on the evidence to hand or reasonably accessible. For yet other things — including science by and large — plausibly or possibly so and reliable i/l/o the balance of evidence is good enough. And so forth.
I am taking a little time to show you that I am not just talking from empty talking points, there are grounds of warrant for what I have to say. And, speaking for this blog, on worldview matters we have spent years thinking through such core matters. As, they lie at the heart of how our civilisation is in the state it is.
Now, too, you will notice that in speaking of moral certainty, I highlighted responsibility, moral government. We intuitively know that we have duties to truth, care in reasoning, fairness, justice, neighbour who is as we are, and more.
All of this reflects how our life of reason is inextricably entangled with responsibility, duty, moral government. And, dismissive hyperskepticism seeking to sweep that away is manifestly a failure of such duties.
Were our rational faculty utterly unrestrained by responsibility, duty, moral government, it would fall into the cynical nihilism of utter manipulativeness and imposition by force: might and/or manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘justice’ and more. That is suicidally absurd. And you know better, as you know that the very force that energises dispute such as in this thread is duty to truth, sound reason and more.
Yes, the mere fact that we inescapably find ourselves trying to justify ourselves and show others in the wrong immediately reveals the massive fact of moral government, and that this is critical to governing ourselves in community. On pain of mutual ruin.
But then, that surfaces another point you wished to brush off with dismissive talking points: the IS-OUGHT gap. That IS and OUGHT are categorically distinct and hard to resolve and unify. That has been known since Plato and beyond. Since Hume, we have known it can only be resolved at world-root level, or else we fall under the guillotine of ungrounded ought. Reasoning IS-IS, then suddenly from nowhere OUGHT-OUGHT. Where, if OUGH-ness is delusion, it instantly entails grand delusion, including of the life of responsible reason itself.
Your root challenge is, there is only one serious candidate that can soundly bridge the gap: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
This is not an arbitrary imposition, we are dealing with worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory adequacy (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). If you doubt what I just said, simply put up a successful atlernative: ________ . (Prediction: v. hard to do.)
So, we are at world-root level, looking at generic ethical theism and the central importance of moral government in our life of reason.
The easy hyperskepticism that sweeps all before it on sheer rhetorical audacity is not good enough.
And, it is interesting that so far you have not readily found significant fault with the central Christian ethical teaching (which is of course profoundly Hebraic in its roots). It is there above, laid out in full. Kindly, tell us why those who acknowledge themselves to be under its government and will readily acknowledge that it is a stiff life-challenge are to be instantly, deeply suspect with but few exceptions.
And, tell us why a civilisation deeply influenced by such a teaching is to be branded with a scarlet letter instead of found to be in the sort of struggle to rise to excellence in the face of our finitude, prone-ness to error, moral struggle and too often our ill-will that are the anchor-points of genuine progress for our world.>>
I should add an earlier remark on two example of self-evident moral truth:
KF, 15: >>[I]mplicit in any contested argument is the premise that we have duties to truth, right and soundness in reasoning. On pain of twisting our intellectual powers into nihilistic weapons of cynical deception. In short X objects to Y, on the confident knowledge of in-common duties of intellectual, rational and epistemic virtue. The attempt to challenge ALL moral obligation would be self-referential and incoherent, undermining good faith reasoning itself.
I would go so far as to say this duty of care to truth, right and sound reasoning is self-evident and is typically implicitly accepted.
So, no, we cannot challenge ALL moral claims without undermining even the process of argument itself. No, we cannot dismiss general moral reasoning as suspect of being a blind appeal to authorities. No, mere consequences we happen to imagine (ever heard of the doctrine of unintended consequences?) or motives we think we read in the hearts of others (you are the same who seemingly views Christianity in general as though we are automatically suspect . . .) cannot ground such a broad-brush skepticism about moral reasoning.
We are already at self-referential incoherence.
Infinite regress comes out of the insisted on ALL and the inextricable entanglement of reasoning and moral duties as were outlined. Claim A is suspect so B must be advanced but implies another ought, so B requires C, and oops, we are on to infinity and absurdity.
General hyperskepticism about the moral brings down the proud edifice of reason too by fatally undermining its own self.
Selective hyperskepticism ends in inconsistency, exerting a double standard: stiff rules for thee, but not for me when such are not convenient to where I want to go . . . .
we need plumbline, naturally straight test cases.
One of these, as I outlined, is the inextricable entanglement of reason and duty to truth, right and soundness of logic.
In that light, we can then look at sound yardstick cases and clear the rubble of the modernist collapse of rationality and responsibility away.
For example,it is self-evidently wrong, wicked, evil to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasure. (And, sadly, this is NOT a hypothetical case.)
Probe this case and you will see that such a child hath neither strength nor eloquence to fight or plead for himself or herself. And yet, were we to chance on such a demonic act in progress we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least bawl for help.
We are inescapably under moral government.
Which implies that IS and OUGHT must be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of reducing moral government to grand delusion that takes down rationality itself in its collapse.>>
Food for thought. END
Comments
Truth Will Set You Free @ 2
No. Morals are merely subjective opinions…
Quite right. What else can they be?Seversky
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
@KF
I'd point out that nothing in the threads you referenced conflicts with the position that there isn't actually two kinds of beliefs: basic an non-basic. Rather what you call basic beliefs are just beliefs that we currently lack good criticism of.
But, by all means, feel free to point out what good criticisms we have of what you call basic-beliefs. Or that you didn't decide which beliefs are basic by criticizing them in respect to other beliefs.
Can you provide an example that doesn't fit? I don't think you can.critical rationalist
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
kairos @19,
patronising arguments from authority work, only if the person involved has the accomplishments behind him/her to carry off such bravado; you don't. So I'll try again.
You take advantage of the protections afforded by an enlightenment document to push Christian morality; nice!
What makes Chrisitian morality superior to Islamic morality; I can think of at least 1.3 billion people who will disagree.
Time for you to give your usual pedantic opaque ramble followed by, 'And thus my point is proved!'
Why is Chrisitian morality the most bestest of allll other religionesis moralities?
You (and everyone at UD), need to consult Democritus on science.rvb8
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
JSmith: They are not arguments against what I have said about the fact that ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned. Unless, of course, you suggest that we shouldn’t use the reasoning capabilities that we were given.
One problem with Smith's call for rational debate on self-evident truths is that his preferred world view cannot house any "reasoning capabilities" whatsoever. As most of us know, a materialistic world is necessarily an utterly moronic world.Origenes
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
>>ALL morals that we have, regardless of the source, regardless of whether they are objective or subjective, are filtered through humans. As such, we can never be absolutely sure that they are free from error. All of your “moral governance”, “reasoning and responsibility“, “self referential”, “IS-OUGHT” talking points are just that. Talking points. They are not arguments against what I have said about the fact that ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned.>>
ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned? -- ALL moral actions without exception?
Are you absolutely sure about that? -- I mean, absolutely sure morally? -- absolutely sure unquestionably?boru
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
F/N: Plato in The Laws, Bk X, to see how long the inherent amorality and nihilism of evolutionary materialism has been exposed on record, and of course just how long its advocates have tried to ignore this fatal problem:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
RVB8, could we kindly have a comment from you that recognises the distinction between mere complexity and functionally specific complex organisation and associated information? KF
PS: You need to consult Plato about nihilism.
PPS: Kindly cf above on just why I spoke as I did in reply to CR's insistent question. I need not elaborate further.kairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
JAD & DfO, yup, the issues are obvious. That is why I started with truth, warrant and knowledge, including pausing to address Kantians. I also took time to show how moral government cannot be severed from acts of reasoning, as reasoning inherently involves duties to truth, sound logic, warrant, fairness and justice etc, on pain of becoming prostituted to the worst forms of might and manipulation make "right" "truth" etc nihilism. Further to this, if that sense of moral government that is implicit in arguing that the other person is in error and ought to get right about it is delusional, then this sets grand delusion loose on mindedness. Going on, the point of the case of the young abused and murdered child is that such a child has no hope of the might or the eloquence to impose its will in the face of a murderously predatory demonically lustful pervert. So, one is reduced to recognising that the other of equal nature is of equal worth and so the rights one expects to be respected on by consistency extend to the other. Where also the reality of such perverts points to the challenge of growing in virtue rater than evil, which is so often dismissed or ignored. There is the duty of neighbour to act in the face of assault on the helpless, which opens up a world of issues all the way to the last resort, just war in the face of demonic unyieldingly pitiless and predatory, tyrannical evil writ large. Then, we have to look at, where does such a moral law -- written on our hearts and minds to the point where we cannot argue without implicit reliance on it -- come from? that opens up the IS-OUGHT gap that has been there since Plato at least. Notice how there has been no cogent response oh, here is a world-root level alternative. No prizes for guessing why. Of course the silence on the central Christian ethical teaching in the other thread speaks for itself also. And more. KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Oh,
and could we have a contribution sometime soon that does not have as their subject matter the following:
1) The immorality of evolution.
2) Darwin/Hitler/Stalin/Some some mass-murder committed in the US.
3) Statistical impossibility of evolution.
4) 'Evolution can't explain the complexity of....."X".'
5) Miracles prove design. (First please provide evidence of miracles.)
6) Manufactured friction within evolutionary Biology concerning evolution. (No! The biologists argue only over possible new mechanisms beyond RM+NS, and the evidence.)rvb8
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
The Quran does indeed claim to be the final and most perfect teachings, laws, and set of morals laid out by Allah,God,Yaweh, via the medium of the Prophrt Mohummed(Blessed be His name).
Surely this warrantless Islamic claim, supercedes all previous warrantless Jewish/Christian claims? If not by the default fact of, 'progress' alone?
Kairos @9,
"I take advantage of the fact that I am in a jurisdiction where it is safe to speak directly like this."
Yes! That is because your 'jurisdiction' is just that, a district obeying laws. Specifically enlightenment, constitutional, manmade laws. Sharia, Mishneh Torah, The Ten Commandments, hold no sway in your, 'juridiction'.
Because if they did Kairos, they would not only supply their own seperate confusing 'moralities', but demand everybody else, on pain of death, obey them.
You see Kairos, atheists have a far clearer, and less occluded view of the times, when Christian 'morality' held sway.rvb8
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
CR, I expected that reaction, never mind my caution on the obvious issues. Kindly cf here and here, also this. Much more can be said. KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
The problem with most of our regular interlocutors is that they do not even accept truth in a basic trivial sense. How can you have an honest discussion or debate if your interlocutor won't engage with you honestly? Of course that raises the question the next question: how can you have an honest debate unless you share an interpersonal standard of honesty and truth? And how can we have an interpersonal standard of truth if it’s based on only one person’s subjective opinion? Or they smugly reject even the idea of any kind of interpersonal truth.
So why do they keep showing up here? It appears to me that most of them take the most extreme position: they cannot even tolerate even the idea of truth.
Frankly, it’s foolish to try to reason with someone like that.john_a_designer
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
@KF
I have good warrant to reject the Quran’s claim to be authoritative divine revelation, having to do with certain key claims therein. We are after all expected to test the claimed prophet. I don’t usually speak so directly on this, but you directly asked and on track record would wish to make a noise about not answering.
And what are those key claims? What tests are you referring to? You really haven't answered the question as this is a vague response.
Second, we both know that a plumbline is a longstanding practical standard of the vertical and the straight, which has thus become embedded in discussions as a familiar reference . . . attempts to create oddball exceptions are besides the point.
They are not mere "exceptions". Nor did anything I wrote indicated that plumb lines are not widely used.
Rather, their wide use is accepted precisely due to explanations about how the world works, which defines under which conditions they return good readings of verticals. If they are not setup in accordance with that explanation, we would not accept their readings. Right?
For every useful rule of thumb, there is an explanation. Plumb lines are no exception. If one merely assumes plumb lines will work because they worked in the past, they could end up with incorrect readings. This is because plumb lines are not magic. They need to be configured correctly and used under conditions that do not conflict with the underlying explanations for how they operate.
So, again, the readings of a plumb line are subject to criticism as to how they are configured, etc. Those results are theory laden.
And, why I would choose the reality of consciousness [the first fact through which we address all other facts], or that error necessarily exists as a key breakthrough insight tied to how we seek warrant, or how distinct identity is pivotal to right reason AND the domain of numbers, as key test cases should be obvious. These, are central.
Just so I have this straight, you selected those particular beliefs by comparing how fundamental of a role they played in other beliefs and by selecting those for which we lacked good criticism, such as that we are conscious.
Is that an accurate statement? Or are you suggesting that we do have good criticisms of the ideas that you presented, such as that we are conscious, and that we do not have good criticisms other beliefs that you did not select?
IOW, it seems to me that what you did, is criticize a number of beliefs in various ways, then presented the ones that were left over as being basic-beliefs, since you lacked good criticisms of those that remained.
The problem with this is that what you consider basic-beliefs would depend on you having exhaustive knowledge of what criticisms to apply when determining which beliefs are basic. There could be some criticism that might hold in the case of consciousness, or other beliefs, that you're not aware of. Or criticisms that no one has thought of yet. At which point, those beliefs would no longer be basic.
What "warrant" do you have for your belief that we will have no good criticisms of those ideas in the future?
When making your response, note how you are basically criticizing those beliefs and seeing those criticisms fail.critical rationalist
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
@Barry
You mean how you provided an explanation as to how you managed to infallibly identify a source of moral values and infallibly interpreted that source?
Oh, that’s right. You still haven’t, after asking at least half a dozen times.
Coward?critical rationalist
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
CR,
I have good warrant to reject the Quran's claim to be authoritative divine revelation, having to do with certain key claims therein. We are after all expected to test the claimed prophet. I don't usually speak so directly on this, but you directly asked and on track record would wish to make a noise about not answering. Of course, in so directly answering, I take advantage of the fact that I am in a jurisdiction where it is safe to speak directly like this. I am on record on the matter, so this is nothing new.
Second, we both know that a plumbline is a longstanding practical standard of the vertical and the straight, which has thus become embedded in discussions as a familiar reference . . . attempts to create oddball exceptions are besides the point. And, why I would choose the reality of consciousness [the first fact through which we address all other facts], or that error necessarily exists as a key breakthrough insight tied to how we seek warrant, or how distinct identity is pivotal to right reason AND the domain of numbers, as key test cases should be obvious. These, are central. For morals, I long since recognised that we must be rational and responsible, leading to the force of the point that duties of care to truth, sound logic, fairness, justice etc are inextricably entangled in our life of the mind. The specific case of a kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered young boy is a fact of experience one saddening afternoon thirty-odd years ago when I went to dinner in a campus cafeteria as usual. None of this undermines the force of self evidence.
That SET's starting with LOI, LNC and LEM are central to reasoning soundly and responsibly has been a commonplace for thousands of years. That you would seem to wish to dismiss them as vital tests of soundness reflects on you, not on them.
To see just how central, here is how you began your remarks, expanded:
{D | ~D} + {o | ~o}
You cannot even post an objection without implicitly relying on those principles.
KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
CR,
Are you going to provide UB an example of a “quantum storage medium”?
Coward.Barry Arrington
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
@KF
Out of all possible measures, did we arbitrarily pick a plumb line as way to measure verticals? No, we did not. There are a number of explanatory theories about how the world works, in reality, that explains how plumb lines work.
If we didn't setup a microscope correctly, we wouldn't expect to receive accurate readings. Right? You can't replace a lens with a banana and expect to see bacteria. In the same sense, if we thought a plumb line was not setup correctly, we wouldn't expect it to give accurate vertical measurements. For example, if there was a object with very high mass nearby. Or if the plumbline was connected relative to a moving platform or vehicle, etc.
In both cases, conclusions we reach from microscopes and plumb lines are theory laden. They are not mere appeals to authority. We can criticize the results in regards to if they were setup correctly based all of those theories.
Just like our theory of the seasons, plumb lines and microscopes represent a long chain of independently formed, hard to vary, explanations about how the world works.
However, what you're suggesting is some kind of moral plumb line that is not based on explanatory theories about how the world works, in reality. Nor are you suggesting can be criticized in some way, like we can with actual plumb lines.
It's unclear how this is a good analogy.critical rationalist
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
@KF,
I'll ask the same question I've asked you repeatedly. Out of all possible beliefs, why did you choose those specific beliefs as examples of supposedly self-evident beliefs? Or to rephrase, how did you narrow down a subset of self-evident beliefs out of all possible beliefs?critical rationalist
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
--Do you think the Qur’an is the verbatim word and the final divine revelation of God?--
If the answer is no that sorta is the answer.tribune7
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
@KF,
Do you think the Qur'an is the verbatim word and the final divine revelation of God?
I'm asking because it claims to be an infallible source of God's word. So, if not, why haven't you accepted it as such?critical rationalist
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
--Can morals be grounded as objective knowledge --
If there is not a final authority, no.
If there is a final authority, the question is not necessary as moral are grounded in objective knowledge.tribune7
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
No. Morals are merely subjective opinions... under a/mat faith-based philosophy.Truth Will Set You Free
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Can morals be grounded as objective knowledge (and are some moral principles self-evident)?kairosfocus
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
