Thank you for the exchange ...
It is often reasoned
moral law commands us to seek the summum bonum (highest good), with increasing "happiness" as a logical result. But a problem arises when we contemplate the unpleasant fact that there is not the slightest ground in the moral law for a necessary connection between morality and proportionate happiness in a being that belongs to the world as a part of it. As Huntard as successfully pointed out,
individual conscience and happiness themselves are subjective; thus, so would all of their offspring reasonably be.
Additionally, some deeds are not only evil but monstrously evil; appearing immune to any kind of moral relativizing. In making such high voltage moral judgments, as when we condemn slavery and genocide, we point to a transcendent realm of moral absolutes. Otherwise, all our moralizing is pointless and groundless. Nevertheless, the 'universal' apodictic moral condemnations of such immoral men as Hitler and the likes appear to transcend tastes and mores; seemingly demanding a condemnation of supernatural dimensions.
Moreover, we are not continually pressed to do the 'immoral' thing.
The pressure to do one's 'moral duty' can be felt as strongly as the pressure of an empirical object. Who or what is causing this pressure? It is not enough to say that we are conditioned by society to feel those pressures. Some of the greatest moralists in history have acquired their fame precisely because they criticized the moral failings of their group, tribe, class, race, or nation. Therefore, if social subjectivism is the explanation of moral motivation, then do we have a right to criticize slavery or genocide or anything? Instinctivists and their counterparts insist all morality is merely a long development from animal instincts; mankind gradually working out its ethical system by living together in socialized communities. It is asserted human intellect developed from the physical brain of the primates, yet assumed the intellect is trustworthy.
If the mind is entitled to trust, though evolved from the lower forms, why not the moral nature also?
In conclusion a "preaching relativist" is one of the most comical of self contradictions; tied for first with a christian pharisee flaunting ten don't-mandments (instead of two do-mandments).
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : spelling
™ Version 4.2
