As the ongoing exchange on watersheds and dual mutually polarised slippery slopes continues, 07 has been demanding:
07, 536: I am still waiting on my list of 10 self evident moral truths. If anyone else can help Phinehas out that would be appreciated!
He now stands answered in the very next comment, which I headline:
>>537
[youtube my_FrkFIwzk]
There are many other cases, and of primary importance is the mass slaughter of the unborn under false colour of law, which deadens conscience through the destructive impact of mass bloodguilt.
And, in a day where the truth is hated and attacked, consistent peaceful testimony to corrective truth is an important and even courageous step towards sound audit and reform of government gone bad.
KF
*PS: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.)>>
I see overnight where WJM adds a remark at 558 that is well worth adding to this FTR (snip — 07 and HR not same, let’s deal in-thread ):
>>558
Zeroseven first asks:
WJM and those who believe in objective moral truths. Please list 10. All you ever mention is child torture or some variation on that. Put up. What are you guys scared of?
Note, he/she asked for “objective oral truths”. Later, after Phineas responded that he could, he changes what he asks for:
Great. This will be the first time I have even seen these self evident moral truths laid out. Looking forward to it.
Then Aleta picks up the request:
What you haven’t done is listed 10 self evident moral truths about how a human being ought to behave.
Apparently, Aleta and Zeroseven don’t understand the difference between an objective truth and a self-evident truth. For moral objectivists, all moral rules are objective in nature. That doesn’t mean they are self-evident.
As I said before, self-evident truths are those statements which are immediately known as true by any sane person who understands the terms, and to deny them is to render the subject absurd. Statements such as “I exist” and “X=X” are examples of self-evident truths. These foundational truths cannot be proven themselves because they are the bedrock truths we use in order to prove other things; we are required to assume them valid starting points in order to get anywhere.
Compared to “objective truths”, there are very few “self-evident truths”. An objective truth might be the formula which describes gravitational effects, or E=MC2. Hardly self-evident, they are still what we would call objectively true.
I often use the statement “it is wrong to gratuitously torture children” as my example of a self-evident moral truth, but I think I can offer something that is more along the lines of a fundamental principle, like ‘I exist” or “X=X”: Cruelty is morally wrong. Here’s another: Love is morally good.
Once you understand what those terms mean, if you are sane, you know this is true. To deny it as true means you are wrong, not that the statement refers to subjective sentiment.
Furthermore, all sane people act as if that statement is objectively true, because they will act as if it is objectively true by attempting to stop or speaking against acts of cruelty. You can say all day long that you don’t believe in objective morality, but you still act as if you do.
Some objective moral truths (some may be general and/or conditional):
1. Love is good.
2. Kindness is good.
3. Generosity is good.
4. Forgiveness is good.
5. Honesty is good.
6. Humility is good.
7. Cruelty is wrong.
8. Hating is wrong.
9. Wantonly destroying the property of others is wrong.
10. Stealing from others is wrong.
11. Lying for personal gain is wrong.
12. Treating others as a means to an end is wrong.
13. Not helping others you are aware of in need is wrong.
14. Cheating is wrong.Shall I stop there?>>
There being a live thread in progress, discussion may continue there, this is FTR. END
PS: This earlier FTR is also relevant.
07:
Your rhetorical wait is over.
There is no material difference between a single self evident moral truth and a dozen, once one exists such a category is non-empty. However, there are in fact several reasonably accessible self evident core moral truths of cumulatively systematic impact:
In short, Locke was more than right to ground his argument in his 2nd treatise on civil govt that founds modern liberty and democracy on this from Canon Richard Hooker:
The echoes in the US DoI, 1776 and the US Constitution thence the framework of modern constitutional democracy, are manifest and undeniably effective. A warning to those who now interfere with the system to inject an extreme nominalism and it implication of nihilistic might/manipulation makes right, by warping our sense of equality and right such that conjugal marriage is rhetorically and propagandistically presented as bigotry and oppression and then through manipulation of institutions of government and law, principled stance on conjugal marriage is marginalised and subject to aggressive lawfare. The damage such wreaks on the society as a whole — cf the George lecture and the Gessen tape in the OP — given the crucial importance of natural marriage and family for human thriving, shows the destructive nature of such an agenda.
{Let’s add for record:}
George: