posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 01:20am on 2004-07-24
"First off, it arrives at the 'no measure of morals without God' argument"

Well ... I don't think so, quite. The basic model only requires reference to "a higher form of good"; I read the "or ultimately an absolute standard of 'good'" as being a refinement and the "which is God" clause as being nearly parenthetical (basically reminding the reader that the particular discussion from which the quote was snarfed is a Christian context). So I don't read this as a "no morals without God" so much as an "and those of us who believe in Him calibrate the scale using God as a reference".

But a) I have seen the reasoning you complain about, and it's pretty easy to disprove (just look at the existence of Existentialist ethics and morals), and b) that's not the only problem you brought up...

"Second, evil and good both imply activity"

I think that was one of the things that bothered me that I couldn't put my finger on.

"People talk of Evil and Good as always large, all-encompassing, sweeping things. No they aren't. Evil is often petty, good is often simple."

A good thing to be reminded of every so often.

"Not very coherent, but hope it helped."

Yes, it did.

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31