And do you not have a plan for attaining individual justice, or if you do nothing then individual justice will just happen?
You cannot give a single reason why your justice is justice other than a metaphysical judgment of value. Surely, you can say “I value a world where individual rights are valued”, but alas man has no objective rights qua his nature as homo sapiens, rather it is our judgments of value that project rights upon him.
Here’s one of the first ‘piecemeal’ social reforms you could enact :
You should try to get rid of words like ‘justice’ ‘right’ ‘wrong’ & ‘freedom’. Those words should be erased from human language since they are meaningless and cause confusion.
Why should I? I beleive in an objective, omnipotent arbiter of morality.
Uh oh.
Is your version of morality, objective ?
Are you saying that the lies spread by your church are not really lies ?
Are you saying that whatever absurdity you believe as part of your ‘religious’ indoctrination is what morality really is ?
Or are you saying that you ‘subjectively’ believe X is true, but you admit that what you believe is just a fantasy ?
If you admit that your beliefs are just fantasies, then this
is really irrelevant.
My vision of morality can be broken down into objective facts, anchored upon the foundation of a deity. If you want to deny the truth of my morality, so be it. But in doing so you have to bite the bullet, and relinquish any truths about ethics, and justice. Surely, you can say that: “Theory of justice A is preferable to theory of justice B”, but it is nothing but preference.
You mean, if I deny the ridiculous lies of your church, I also need to give up real morality ?
Do you mind explaining such absurdity ?
I’m not sure I’m really understanding your position. Are you openly saying that either your morality based on religious non-facts is true, or there’s no morality at all ?
The Prince and The Republic. Use Machiavelli as your villain. You can correlate the functioning of governmental politics to Machiavelli’s instructions convincingly. Next, show the results of those instructions with the governments own statistics.(Hayek will provide you with an established authority) Try and find someone to explain to you how resources are allocated within the bureaucracy. Look for someone trying to effect liberty from within. This will give you a more accurate representation of the internal economy that allocates stolen wealth. (taxes).
Apply what you will, and give that prof no choice but to give you a good grade, even if he thinks your a naive boob.
Good luck
I fear nothing if it involves freedom.
So you are a prophet? You either speak for god or are trying to tell us you are god - i think that’s called blasphemy!
The conclusion would be is that there is no objective morality, rather just metaphysical judgments of value; if, by your definition, that means that there is no morality so be it.
I think you’re just someone who can’t understand a basic sentance, but that’s just my opinion.
Do you mind rephrasing that ? It contains a typo and seems to be evasive too. I can’t make head or tail of it.
The monotheistic deities have a pesky habit of basing their foundation on plagiarism. You’re also refering to morality as if it’s subjective and exclusive to religion (lol), so I’m going to have to ask you to put down the bible.
Despite all of your words, you never actually said a word against my point.
That wasn’t my intention.
Then why quote me if you are simply going to state something completely non sequitur?
I present analysis coupled with a conclusion, and wait to see where you stand on it.
Your point being?
Objective ethics are exclusive to religion, but not ethics itself.
And I’m going to have to ask you to bite the bullet, and accept that your ethical beliefs are nothing but metaphysical judgments of value.
Do you think you can provide something resembling a proof for your laughable and unfounded assertion ?