Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

_{News
October 17, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, theism

6}_{Categories
Ethics
Intelligent Design
Naturalism
theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty now challenges neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief:

Michael Egnor: You’ve agreed with me that there are people who act out of respect for an objective moral law.
Matt Dillahunty: I agree with you there are people who act that way because of their belief and whether they believe it’s objective or not is irrelevant. They can believe it’s subjective and still do it. [01:29:30]
Michael Egnor: So, you don’t believe that it’s objectively wrong, for example, to kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews?
Matt Dillahunty: Hang on. We just went through a whole bunch of stuff and when you got to a point where it was exposed that you were wrong about what you said, you went back to: I don’t think it’s objectively wrong to rape people and kill babies. That’s not what we were just discussing. We were discussing altruism and whether or not there’s a justification for it.
Michael Egnor: Yeah. But it’s what we’re discussing now, Matt. My question is, is it objectively wrong to do certain things, outside of opinions? [01:30:00]
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve already answered this and I’m sorry that you don’t understand it. I will try one more time.
When you declare what a foundation of morality is, once that’s done, you can compare the consequences of various actions with respect to that foundation, with respect to that goal. That comparison can be objective in the same way that the rules of chess are ultimately arbitrary. They didn’t have to be that way. We made up the game. It is objectively against the rules for you to move your pawn forward four spaces at the beginning of the game. Now, you can say, is it objectively wrong? Well, no, we could have house rules, but we’re talking about these rules.
News, “8. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God?” at Mind Matters News

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Takehome: Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Comments

@Origenes Materialists have a psychological motive, which is based on them defining making a choice, in terms of figuring out the best option. This conception of making a choice, in terms of what is best, has enormous psychological appeal. Because people are pressured to do the best, and because people like the best. Materialists threw out the spirit from their concept of making a choice, is how they became a materialist in the first place. So then materialists conceive of making a choice, the same as like a chesscomputer calculating a move.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PST}

Actual objective morality: ===== Yes comrades, throw out all those sentiments of a subjective morality, and accept the truth of the objective morality, based on God's law of natural selection. Isn't it obvious that our major emotions are geared precisely towards reproductive success? The major emotions are involved with a spouse, a mother, a father, children. Isn't it obvious this is all about reproduction? Isn't that the objective moral code? An objective moral code fashioned by God into a law of nature, the law of natural selection. ===== The only reason why the people who say to support objective morality, do not support social darwinism, is because of the history of the holocaust. If now would have been prior to the holocaust, then all of the objective morality folks would support social darwinism. Social darwinism is simply logical, if objective morality would be true. It's such an outrage that you all keep on being totally ignorant about how subjectivity works, while I have explained it time and again. A subjective opinion is chosen, and a subjective opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice. Which means, the part of reality that is subjective, is the part that makes the choices. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact Kind of a big issue, subjectivity. Yet none of you actually accept the validity of subjectivity.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PST}

Q, never underestimate the intellectual influence of big-S science taken captive to evolutionary materialistic scientism. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PST}

Q:
So what baffles me is their motivation and why they even bother.
For some reason everything is allowed to protect an obviously false narrative. What makes it so precious to them? My take is that they know they are part of a lie, but that is of secondary importance to them. What is all important to them is their social presence in the world; as opposed to the innerworld of self. It's all about keeping up appearances. The narrative is all-important for the performance of their social identity. Summing up, we are dealing with people who have yet to learn that the social world, where the lie rules surpreme, is of lesser importance than the inner truth.Origenes_{October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PST}

Q, do not underestimate the significance of the penumbra of attack sites. Nor the institutionalised power of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies. KFkairosfocus_{October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PST}

Sandy @118, Yes, indeed. And typically they don't really believe in relativism in their own day-to-day experiences. Imagine their reaction to someone driving over their lawn, their dog, or their foot . . . All of a sudden they go absolute on someone who was just peacefully doing public performance art with their car as a political or personal statement. -QQuerius_{October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PST}

Just some observations and questions.
The objective moral law is working even in atheists and all their "struggle" to prove us wrong with "evidences" has a base in the moral law that live in our hearths that nobody can escape from no matter what their beliefs are. Why atheists argue for truth and try to bring evidences(no matter how true or false) in their favor? Because they can't escape from the basic rule of moral law to JUSTIFY YOUR BEHAVIOUR. The fact of appealing to false evidences doesn't change that unwritten rule of trying to explain why they hold a particular opinion.Sandy_{October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PST}

Kairosfocus @111,
Q, a self-referentially incoherent position is not defensible on rational grounds, especially as it denies the possibility of what it implies itself to be (an objective truth regarding principles of right conduct) and as it invites the grand delusion inference, sawing off the branch on which we all must sit (if something so widely present and significant as perceived moral duties and the voice of conscience are delusional, mind comes under loss of credibility).
Very true, but the fact doesn't seen to faze certain people here. They simply jump in and out of "objective truth" as needed for the moment. There's a reason for this.
However, far too many in our day cling to irrational ideologies such as evolutionary materialism, often failing to realise its nihilistic import warned against on public record since Plato reflected on the collapse of Athens’ democratic experiment.
The word "cling" is key here! Reason alone did not bring them to evolutionary materialism, and reason alone is not keeping them there. But they are indeed clinging to evolutionary materialism even though 1. Darwinism was a 19th century speculation based on a pigeon breeding analogy but without scientific evidence, but rather the promise that such evidence would someday be found. Since then, the theory simply accommodates or rationalizes evidence that would otherwise falsify this pathetic theory. 2. Materialism was basically shattered nearly a century ago with the discoveries in quantum mechanics that reality is fundamentally immaterial, based on probabilities, information, and conscious observation. Historically and currently, a huge amount of scientific effort has been expended to try to keep the ships, HMS Evolutionary and USS Materialism, from sinking, including suppression of dissent and outright fraud. But this still doesn't answer the question as to why certain detractors persistently are first to respond to many posts and use the same tired, falsified information and reasoning as they always have. They do not present new information or scientific explanations, but rely on rhetorical devices to mislead, divert, or mock more serious discussion. In other words, the arguments are disingenuous and generally uninformed. So what baffles me is their motivation and why they even bother. - Do they need self validation? - Do they feel smug and secure in "following the current scientific narrative" that they feel invulnerable and know deep inside that they just gotta be right? - Do they simply want to distract other contributors from serious discussion or waste their precious time? The result often resembles squirrels taunting dogs to chase them into a forest (I'm speaking as one of the dogs) where they simply disappear when finally cornered and reappear on a fresh post using the same flawed information and logic as before. Or is there something else? After all, I don't appear on evolutionary forums taunting the people there about how, for example, "Lucy's" bones were found widely scattered in different strata without feet, and then providing a link to the following: https://www.icr.org/article/human-foot-bone-misidentified-lucys to whip the Darwinists there into a frenzy and asking them to provide other data on Lucy---which I then pronounce insufficient and ignore the work they put into assembling it. Just some observations and questions. -QQuerius_{October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PST}

MNY, I wrote for needed record. KFkairosfocus_{October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PST}

@KF We've been trough all this before. 1. It is the obvious truth that people have intellectual problems with understanding subjectivity, not with objectivity. This is just my experience in exploring this issue for years. The scientific method does a good enough job in dealing with objectivity. There is no subjective counterpart to the scientific method, for people to get a handle on dealing with subjectivity. The instruction on subjectivity is simply generally absent. If people have serious problems with objectivity, it is generally because they have emotional problems, because they are so bad at dealing with subjectivity in the first place. And then you misconstrue this as people having problems with objectivity, being the root cause of the problem. 2. History shows in regards to social darwinism, nazis and the holocaust, and also the Japanese in world war 2, that objective morality is simply emotionless, merciless, calculated morality. Also with communism, it all seems very objectified, and the objectification just leads to completely emotionless, merciless attitudes. Objective morality has a historically bad track record. 3. It is patently obvious that atheists / materialists have deep problems with subjectivity. It is really quite obvious that atheists go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about the facts, and science, 24/ 7 , and that they are clueless about subjectivity. You are siding with the people, who are against God. 4. Whenever you are not trashing subjectivity, then you are just providing meaningless lip service to subjectivity, without proper logical validation. You are simply clueless yourself about how subjectivity works. The reason why people have subjectivity at all, is because of dealing with the issue, of what it was that made a decison turn out A instead of B. The solution to answering any questionof that sort, is to somehow choose an opinion on it, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. So then it can be exclaimed, emotively, that it was love that made the decision turn out A instead of B. No it wasn't, it was a putrid evil, most foul, that made the decision turn out A instead of B. That's how it works, THOSE ARE THE RULES!! WE MUST HAVE RULES!! 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / factmohammadnursyamsu_{October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PST}

F/N: as example, "one ought not to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child on the way home from school for one's [sicko!] pleasure." This asserts and implies that it is the case that a certain state of affairs is a violation of duty to neighbour, and a gross injustice thus should not be instantiated, there is no just freedom or right to act in that way. Thus it declares a truth claim about right or wrong conduct and duty; including that certain duties are objective and intelligible to a normally functioning human being. The denial that such truth claims are objective runs right into Hawthorne's stricture in 106, and as this is a manifest, self-evident -- and sadly real life -- case, the denial is a manifestation of monstrous absurdity. This is above and beyond rightly provoked feelings of revulsion, outrage etc. KFkairosfocus_{October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PST}

PPS: Though in an age haunted by relativism, subjectivism and emotivism, beauty is often seen as a personal, non-rational perception, there is an entire discipline of aesthetics that has long since identified fairly convincing principles and guidelines that make beauty an intelligible and significantly objective study. One that demonstrably guided the artists responsible for many major classics [think here Parthenon, Giza, Mona Lisa, Nefertiti etc], and where today's deliberate flouting . . . notoriously in architecture . . . creates eyesores such as London's spoiled skyline. I hope that Paris at least holds the line. That could also for example extend to the young lady at the bank yesterday who helped me with a transaction. As she grew up in church I observed that while her older sister was quite pretty in face, this little girl's face was a classic in the making. And, now that she is all grown up, that proves true, with her brilliant, shining coal eyes as focal feature.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PST}

MNY, your claims pivot on a need to recognise that our being conscious, self-moved, reflexively acting agents is further constrained by the well understood fact that we are error-prone, finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill willed, delusional and stubborn. That is why duty to prudence includes duty to so warrant key claims through right reason that they are credibly true and at the least empirically reliable. That is what objectivity of truth claims is about, providing reasonable warrant that key claims are credible, not likely to be error-riddled or stubbornly asserted and clung to in the teeth of evident facts and logic or duties of fairness and justice etc. The destructive power of slander, gossip, bigotry, ill-founded ideologies [think Marxism and its kissing cousin nazism] or simply paranoid perceptions of the world and those around one, are suggestive of the concerns involved. As such, it does not undermine our freedom to choose but guides and guards us -- yes, voice of conscience is engaged -- in reasoning aright and doing due diligence on duty to truth. Which is also foundational to duties to neighbour including fairness and justice. KF PS: As a reminder, taking first that the truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not; Collins English Dictionary:
objective (?b?d??kt?v) adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?. 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc 4. (Medicine) med (of disease symptoms) perceptible to persons other than the individual affected
kairosfocus_{October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PST}

Q, a self-referentially incoherent position is not defensible on rational grounds, especially as it denies the possibility of what it implies itself to be (an objective truth regarding principles of right conduct) and as it invites the grand delusion inference, sawing off the branch on which we all must sit (if something so widely present and significant as perceived moral duties and the voice of conscience are delusional, mind comes under loss of credibility). However, far too many in our day cling to irrational ideologies such as evolutionary materialism, often failing to realise its nihilistic import warned against on public record since Plato reflected on the collapse of Athens' democratic experiment. Evo mat, of course, while boasting of its rationality and scientific character . . . a little odd since it was on the ground as an ideology in Plato's day . . . also fails to account for our rational, responsible freedom, necessary for reasoned thought to have credibility. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PST}

Wow, Bornagain77 @106 and Kairosfocus @107, Brilliant, well-crafted replies! I hope Seversky takes the time to consider what you both presented. But here's why I'm skeptical. Let me suggest possibility that all Seversky wants to do here is assure himself of a defensible position with which he can rationalize his lifestyle. Nothing more. In other words, he doesn't have to win the debate, just not lose. So, the key is understanding why he makes the effort and where the source of his rejection lies. -QQuerius_{October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PST}

@Origenes Again, what am I to do with your arbitrary assertions that do not even try to discover any rules? You do not propose any counter set of rules, to my rules, you only propose your personal authority. You are wasting my time with your baseless assertions. The word "beautiful" is chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. The emotion is not chosen, the emotion is doing the choosing, the word is chosen. You can tell that this is how it works, by the wide variety in personal expression of a single individual. The painting is beautiful, it's great, marvelous etc. All the variety in expression is proof that it operates in a free way, which is by choice. For religious to promote objective morality, it basically means to promote social darwinism. Social darwinism is objective morality. Saying natural selection is the will of God. With subjectivity thrown out from morality, all the emotion is thrown out, causing people to become ruthless, calculating, measuring.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PST}

PS: The rut we have put our civilisation into is longstanding; there was no excuse of innocent ignorance. Plato, c 360 BC:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 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 -- the natural order], 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, law and government: 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"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . ]
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].
He went on to infer:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 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 -- the natural order], 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] . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them . . . . Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators . . . . they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [--> notice, the self-moved, initiating, reflexively acting causal agent, which defines freedom as essential to our nature, and this is root of discussion on agents as first causes.] [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.
We have willfully forgotten and have gone right back into the same rut we were warned against on record over 2300 years ago. The rut that ruined Athens, the first democracy in our civilisation and discredited democracy for 2,000 years. There is no excuse for our folly.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PST}

Sev, In re your attempted rebuttal:
The claim that there are no moral truths is not in itself a moral claim. It is a claim about what ‘is’ not a claim about what ‘ought’ to be.
On the contrary, a moral truth claim asserts that it is the case that a certain state of affairs obtains in respect of right conduct. That is, it asserts or implies that oughtness on particular or general matters is an actuality, not a mere feeling, perception or imagination etc. Or else, it asserts that such a claim of oughtness is false, i.e. the denial is of the same character as the affirmation. Where, too, every claim regarding what is actually the case [i.e. a claim of truth], or of right or failed reasoning, or warrant or failed warrant, etc, implies associated duties that ought to be duly fulfilled. That is, fundamentally, while is and ought are distinct concepts they are inseparable in our lives of free, responsible reason. This, I will further draw out in a moment, but back to your claim as cited. By now, it will be evident that the assertion that there are no objective -- well warranted -- moral truths implies directly that all moral truth-claims are false and so dismissible. At best they are descriptions of inclinations about behaviour. But, as was pointed out in the first place, such a claim is in patent fact a huge claim about duties, obligations, the value and dignity and even end of those to whom duties are owed. That is, even hiding behind the is-ought gap, the assertion that denies objectivity to moral truth claims as a whole is in fact just such a moral truth claim. It is a claim that also references and contradicts itself, it is self refuting and by principle of explosion radically undermines ability to discern truth from falsity. Aided, in this, by many handy slogans about is and ought and alleged impossibility of bridging the two. (The true answer is they are inseparable and must be unified in the root of reality, but then there are entire heavily institutionalised worldviews and cultural agendas afoot and holding considerable cultural power that ill advisedly seek to undermine ability to recognise such.) Will Hawthorne is apt in exposing the underlying error by way of yardstick test cases that are manifest:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true [--> so, there are no realities beyond the observed temporal-causal, matter-energy, space-time order and whatever "multiverse" or quantum foam extensions thereof that are fashionable]. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [a material] 'is'.
See how a hidden, worldview assumption dressed up in a lab coat warps ability to recognise even patent reality? That should make us realise that the worldview level, question begging involved is a grand fallacy, one reducing itself to absurdity. Not only in cases such as Hitler, Stalin or the like or with those who kidnap, sexually torture and murder children on the way home from school, but already in the nature of the assertion itself. For the assertion that there are no objective moral truths, no truths regarding duty towards things and beings of value with proper ends, is itself implicitly a huge -- and absurdly self-referential -- claim to the truth about such matters. It refutes itself. So, the sounder view would instead start with even just the negative form of the inescapable ciceronian first duties of responsible reason: for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are demonically lawless and destructive. More positively, we cannot but appeal to generally, intuitively known and accepted, duties to truth, right reason warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice etc. The objector, just like the rest of us, as your own objection above implies as you set out to try to correct my perceived blunders. Only, they are not blunders. We find that yes, is and ought are distinct: what ought to be the case, in a world where wrongs, errors, follies etc obtain ever so often, may well not be what is, what obtains as fact. Further, we struggle to find an is capable of bearing the awesome weight of ought. Obviously, space-time, matter-energy wavicles and causal-temporal thermodynamically constrained chains of events cannot suffice. And so in a world with dominant evolutionary materialistic ideology dressed up in the lab coat many will be tempted to infer that ought is groundless, cannot be objective. But that is already a claim of pervasive grand delusion that undermines credibility of mind. Yet another absurdity, here self-referential to those who think like that. Another clue that something is deeply wrong here. Anything that invites a grand delusion inference can be freely set aside as sawing off the branch on which we must sit as inescapably rational, responsible, significantly free creatures. We can term such errors, cases of the Plato's Cave fallacy. Instead, let us recognise inextricable intertwining of is and ought in our reasoning so that BOTH are real and must be fused in the one place in the system of reality where such is possible: root of reality, source of worlds including those with rational, responsible, significantly free intelligent creatures guided and guarded by conscience. We want an IS that is at root of reality that simultaneously grounds OUGHT. Realty root already implies necessary being capable of causing worlds including our own. Fusing is and ought points to precisely one serious candidate, and if you doubt or dismiss kindly provide another without reduction to absurdity: _____. Namely, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Where, what is good or evil, constructive or chaotically destructive is often quite intelligible. So too, Euthyphro as extended from Greek superman gods to the Supreme, world-root being fails. The good is neither arbitrary decree nor independent of the root of reality but can be understood in key part by us and seen to flow from the one who is both utterly wise and inherently good. The radical secularist scheme collapses. And, we duly note how many times the objection above inescapably implies appeals to Ciceronian first duties. Duties testified to by our consciences and which thereby shape how we reason and decide. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PST}

Seversky at 103 states,
Both WLC and you should be aware that Dawkins’s quote refers to the appearance of “pitiless indifference” of the Universe. If there is some sort of objective morality out there it sure doesn’t seem to be doing much, if anything at all.
But alas Seversky, you are, (once again), missing the elephant in your own 'mental' living room. To quote C.S. Lewis, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” — C. S. Lewis
i.e. You yourself must have some objective standard of moral perfection in mind for you to even be able to communicate to other people your idea that the universe is morally imperfect, and/or 'pitilessly indifferent' as Dawkins put it. Yet there can be no objective standard of moral perfection that all people can recognize if God does not actually exist.
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
i.e. You, and Dawkins, in assuming that the universe is pitilessly indifferent, are both, unwittingly, assuming an objective standard of moral perfection, that all people can recognize, and that has been departed from, and are thus both, unwittingly, assuming the objective reality of God in your argument that the universe is 'pitilessly indifferent', i.e. morally imperfect. Moreover, Dawkins full quote is as such,
“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Yet directly contrary to what Dawkins claimed, "the universe that we observe", and "at bottom", screams design and purpose. As Luke Barnes explained, ",,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,,"
The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws - Luke A. Barnes - Fall 2015 Excerpt: You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever. ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws
Moreover, to make matters exponentially worse for Dawkins's claim that 'the universe that we observe' is, 'at bottom', 'pitilessly indifferent' to the existence of humans, is the fact that advances in quantum mechanics have now proven that 'the universe we observe' does not even exist until we are, in fact, observing it. As the following delayed choice experiment with atoms demonstrated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Thus Seversky, Dawkins and you, due to your a-priori atheistic assumptions, may falsely claim that 'the universe that we observe' is, 'at bottom', 'pitilessly indifferent' to the existence of humans, but as far as empirical science itself is concerned, both the fine-tuning of fundamental particles, and even the 'observations' of those fundamental particles themselves, both reveal that the universe is, 'at bottom', very far from being pitilessly indifferent' to the existence of humans. Not that empirical science ever really seems to matter to you Seversky, but as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Dawkins's claim of 'pitiless indifference' is now shown to be a patently false claim. And If you ever do decide to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should, due to the empirical science itself, immediately drop your atheistic worldview and adopt some form of Theism that holds God to be a 'personal' God Who is very much concerned with the affairs of men. Might I point out that Christian Theism has the most 'personal' God possible out of all the mono-Theistic religions??bornagain77_{October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PST}

Kairosfocus/99
PS: One stunt is to pretend that there is one objective moral trut;, that there are no objective moral truths.
The claim that there are no moral truths is not in itself a moral claim. It is a claim about what 'is' not a claim about what 'ought' to be.
OOPS.
Yes, although not in the sense you intended.
They hope we don’t spot how this is self-referential and self-defeating.
The claim about the non-existence of objective moral truths is neither. And, again, the lack of objective moral truths is no bar to our creation of moral codes with the same objectives of justice and fair treatment for all, respect for the rights of others regardless of race, sex, gender, creed or color, embracing diversity rather than fearing it, protecting the powerless from exploitation and abuse by the powerful, preserving the environment on which we all depend for our survival from exploitation by the few for short-term personal gain and so on. Morality is not a few divine commandments engraved on tablets of stone a few thousand years ago. It is a living, growing corpus of moral thinking that has evolved slowly and often painfully over the centuries and is continuing to be refined. How do you know this isn't what your God intended to happen?Seversky_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PST}

Kairosfocus @95,
ET, at core level, duty to neighbour enfolds the decalogue; but it lays out an approach that allows the willing to think through and understand the whys of things like banning willful deception etc.. KF
Good point--exactly! In Judaism, the rabbis pride themselves in being able to extract new laws from the principles revealed in the Ten Commandments and the 603 other laws in Torah. In fact, the specificity of some of them indicates that they're to be used as examples. So, let's consider the Ninth Commandment . . .
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. ( Exodus 20:16)
One understands that it applies to spreading false reports, slander, libel, framing someone, malicious tweets, and so on intended to cause someone harm. It does not require that every detail must be perfect without abstraction: Alice: "How are you today, Bob?" Bob: "Fine." Is this bearing false witness because Bob noticed a chipped tooth this morning and bumped his knee on a desk? -QQuerius_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PST}

Bornagain77/79
Vivid: “For someone that rejects the objective existence of a moral code you sure do exhibit a lot of moral indignation” BINGO! That is the same blatant contradiction in logic that William Lane Craig observed in Richard Dawkins’ arguments against objective morality.,
“Although Dawkins says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, the fact is that Dawkins is also a stubborn moralist. For example,,,” – Richard Dawkins on the Moral Argument for God: by William Lane Craig https://youtu.be/d-OjSKr79aQ?t=65

Both WLC and you should be aware that Dawkins's quote refers to the appearance of "pitiless indifference" of the Universe. If there is some sort of objective morality out there it sure doesn't seem to be doing much, if anything at all. And if there is no objective morality out there to which we can turn, doesn't it make it all the more imperative that we develop our own morality in the interests of a more just, fair and stable society for all?Seversky_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PST}

JVL:
It’s a start but it leaves a lot of issues out. For instance: should women be allowed to vote? Should women be allowed to be ministers or priests? Who should have jurisdiction over ancient remains (a reference to Kenewick Man)?
Please make the case that those have anything to do with objective morality. You are grasping, as usual. But please, prove me wrong.ET_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PST}

@100 Mo
A (subjective) opinion, like to say a painting is beautiful, is chosen, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.
For me, to find a painting beautiful or not, is not a choice at all. I cannot choose to find a painting beautiful. Surely I can choose to express my appreciation for the painting or not and I can even choose to lie about it. But this goes for all my statements.
For religious people to promote objective morality, is a big lie.
Why?Origenes_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST}

For religious people to promote objective morality, is a big lie. People always have problems with subjectivity, they do not have problems with objectivity. Atheists do not accept subjectivity, and subjective morality. I've discussed this with lots of atheists, because it is my main interest. By "subjectivity" atheists mean; - something in the brain that is entirely material, and entirely objective. - Atheists do not accept the entire subjective part of reality. Usually the atheist will argue like, that an emotion such as love is objective, but the experience of this love is then subjective. Then when I further question what this "experience" is supposed to consist of, they always end up with something objective. The atheist does not accept subjectivity in the creationist and common discourse sense of the term, that what makes a choice, is identified with a chosen opinoin. Atheists are also very fond of incorporating subjective terminology into science. Like Richard Dawkins, with his "seflish" gene theory. Or even Hugh Laurie the actor, who had this show where he can establish "lying" without judgement, as just a scientific fact. They like to appropiate the subjective terminology into science, and assert it all as objective and factual.mohammadnursyamsu_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

PS: One stunt is to pretend that there is one objective moral trut;, that there are no objective moral truths. OOPS. They hope we don't spot how this is self-referential and self-defeating. Many others simply have not realised this. But when we deal with those who should or do know better, there is no excuse for such self-refuting schemes of thought in general and especially on the moral government of our rational, responsible freedom. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PST}

Sandy, yes, that is why ordinary people need sound anchoring and need to be ever vigilant about would be usurpers and their stunts. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PST}

PS: Locke:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
This is directly antecedent to the US DoI, 1776, charter of modern constitutional democracy. Where, note how cancel culture SJW red guards are now attacking its main author. Hence the relevance of standing on the reformation principle. Let's go there, recognising that on foundation of duties to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence, sound conscience, duty to neighbour leads straight to fairness and justice. Justice being due balance of rights, freedoms and duties:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
That's the history the radicals want to suppress, the better to cut us off from sound understanding of bitterly bought lessons on how we can escape consequences of the natural state of government by the corrupted: lawless oligarchy.kairosfocus_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PST}

The subjectivism, relativism and emotivism such fallacies support have failed on the merits. Which does not prevent them from being ideologically powerful.
Ideologies are kept alive not by ordinary people but the ordinary people are brainwashed in order to keep alive those evil ideologies .Sandy_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PST}

ET, at core level, duty to neighbour enfolds the decalogue; but it lays out an approach that allows the willing to think through and understand the whys of things like banning willful deception etc.. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply