| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-14, 6:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13r8i07tflvn647@corp.supernews.com...
> tim wrote:
>
> Debunked? Only by the moral relativists. To them, "morality" depends on
> circumstances; under some conditions it is permissable to murder, to
> commit perjury, etc. The end justifies the means.
I think the argument from authority has been debunked, simply because it IS
an argument from authority. As no-one can provide a higher authority than
God, it cannot be refuted by the normal means such an argument would be
refuted (quoting another authority of equal standing, with a different
opinion, or discrediting the quoted authority...) So it comes down to
whether you ACCEPT the authority or not. If you believe in God, you will; if
you don't believe in God you won't.
I don't believe in God so I don't have that particular authority for the
moral code by which I live.
However, I do NOT believe the end justifies the means, my morality does NOT
depend on circumstances, (it is NEVER permissable to commit perjury (and
even under pressure there have been several occasions in my life when I
refused to do so), for example...), and I do NOT consider myself a "moral
relativist" in any way shape or form.
So the argument from authority is NOT debunked ONLY by the "moral
relativists" (here's at least one person who doesn't accept the argument
form authority and is NOT in that group).
You probably don't realise how offensive I find this and I know you didn't
set out to wound, but I am really heartily sick of people telling me I must
be wicked because I don't happen to believe in God.
It is demonstrably not so. I refute it by my life.
>
> To the moral absolutist, no good can come from an immoral act - the end
> does not justify the means.
OK, but to be a "moral absolutist" does NOT necessarily require belief in
God or the acceptance of moral values, ONLY from that authority.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|