Friday, November 5, 2010

Good without God.

I believe the Golden Rule, found in every major culture in history, is the transcultural end of all social being and doing, requiring individual free will, as opposed to being left to natural selection.  I believe our transcultural social essence precedes our individual existence.  This is a more robust argument than the one presented in Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape.

Moral Truth?


  1. The contradicting values of different cultures are evidence that there is no moral truth, that all moralities are social contracts, and that each individual is compelled by genetics and culture to fashion a functional essence.

  2. simone, I respect that you want there to be moral truth, and regina, I respect that you will not settle for a construct.

    The is-ought fallacy is a real fallacy, and is why knowledge is justified, true belief. In order to be knowledge, a belief must both be justified by the evidence, and true by correspondence. If we consider justified a belief that only corresponds, we commit the is-ought fallacy. If we consider a belief true merely due to evidence in favor of it, we commit the ought-is fallacy. Related to moral truth--if a justified (answering the question of Ethics--"How and why should we be or behave with the Other and self?") moral standard doesn't describe anything in reality, to consider it "true" commits the ought-is fallacy. If we take something from reality and call it moral truth, neglecting to consider whether it is justified (answering the question of Ethics), we commit the is-ought fallacy. In order for there to be moral truth, it must both correspond to (a) real being, and it must be justified (answering the question of Ethics). Its correspondence is not its justification (is=/=ought), and its justification is not its correspondence (ought=/=is).

  3. Reader: How do you think regina and I should respond?