Well let's take your example: abortion. Now this is something that is intrinsically evil. You will disagree, naturally. Step back and note two things.
1. background of agreement. Is it murder? Nobody argues abortion is moral because cold-blooded killing is moral. They argue it is moral because it is /not/ murder. So this debate takes place against a universal background of agreement: don't murder. 2, the fact we are debating. If it were really a matter of taste, like dress or food, there would be no debate. The very fact that we / debate/ is what indicates it is a matter of truth, not taste. Consider, for example, disagreements in math or science. Two math guys vigorously disagree over, say, the twin prime conjecture. Does one math whiz say to the other "well, Jones, since we still disagree after decades of this, so I guess it is a matter of opinion. Let's just agree to disagree". They might well "agree to disagree" for a time to let it rest. But it would be temporary, and if they just accepted it as the way things are, we would think they had abandoned their discipline. We expect them to get back to their job. Same for moral debates of good and evil. On Jun 29, 1:42 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Good point Alan, > > Yet such an objective known should surely leave evidance that we can > all agree on? > > Somehow though I feel if we take one single act and debate upon it's > objective evilness we'll qucikly come up to the barriers. > > On 28 June, 00:33, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Lee, I'd point out that the very fact people disagree is what > > indicates the question is objective, not subjective. About matters of > > taste we don't dispute. About matters of truth we should dispute. If > > you say X is not evil and somebody else says X is evil, I'd say one is > > mistaken. What would make no sense is to say "we disagree about the > > matter of X; therefore, X is subjective". > > > On Jun 25, 1:22 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hey Alan, > > > > I can see by this that what ought not to be is highly subjective. > > > Abortion, stem cell research are just two cases where differance of > > > opinion do occour. So If I say neither of these are evil and somebody > > > disagress with me, then what is the truth of the matter? > > > > On 25 June, 06:42, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Evil is what ought not be. > > > > > On Jun 24, 1:51 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A simple question, or is it?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
