|
Ok, lots to say i guess. Firstly, I need to commend chavos for his comments, but that might just be because i agree with them. A lot of what you said reminds me of C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. I beleive that there is a definate and concrete system of morals, Right and Wrong. For to say there is no concrete system, but a completely subjective, interpretive, and wholy opinionated system of ethics would infer that any discussion of right or wrong would be utterly useless. You could not say "The Nazi's were wrong for killing the Jews" unless you concluded by "in my own mind and personal views." Which the other person could only respond by saying what morally existed in their own mind, and if it so happened to differ with yours, all you could say would be "OK". Any dispute on ethical grounds would be pointless because would be no common ground on which the two parties could stand. What then seems to inevitably follow from this, is that our morals and search for truth (for truth would be right and falsity, wrong) is completely void. We would hence be determining personal truths based on what made us most comfortable or "functionable" in society. And I beleive that if that is all our search for truth is, we are not in fact finding any truth but a well developed form of complacency and ignorence.
__________________
Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?
|