M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
- May 26, 2011
- 4,123
- 931
- Thread starter
- #61
Saying that instinct or intelligence is the source of morality explains nothing; you're merely giving us the means of calculation. If that be the case, morality is relative and not quantifiable in any absolute sense. Do you comprehend that?
But you just asserted an absolute, though it be inherently contradictory and therefore irrational: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. . . .
Funny, objectively speaking, whether it be ultimately the case or not, no such reductio ad absurdum arises to overthrow the assertion that truth or morality must be grounded in a universal absolute.
Oh? There's nothing in evolutionary theory that holds that species necessarily become more intelligent over time, and greater intelligence does not necessarily make for more ethically enlightened persons.
We continue to discover that some of our umm, more draconian morals, are not moral afterall. We come to that conclusion by using our intelligence and instincts to their current capacities.
We do? How ya figure that?
circles
Indeed. So goes the logic of those thinking they can refute the rational necessity of absolute, universal imperatives. This is especially true when someone is trying to assert that his relativist gibberish is self-evident when in fact it's nothing of the kind.
Last edited: