Absolute Morality...again.

No, "best" is not relative to indivudal goals, best is relative to what's the fairest judgment of a situation, the best action or outcome of a particular situation for all concerned.Somebody's "goal" could be to murder somebody who is getting in the way of a financial goal or a promotion or something like that. How relativistic are you going to be about that one?And as Ben says -- or at least is asking -- all those goals you list can't all be right. We may not be able to arrive at a consensus about it, but there must be only one right action on every social issue, only we don't have all the facts and we aren't omniscient or unbiased.It's very hard to think of good examples.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do you know how to link to a message? That's the polite thing to do. If you don't, here's how. Message 218 Check "peek" for the method.No, you hadn't committed an ad hominem attack, but asking me a personal question about my personal attitude is an ad hominem method and I am refusing to answer such questions ever again. Not playing that game. Deal with the issues, not the person. None of your business what I think or feel about anything at all ever. I argue what I consider to be objective facts, not my subjective feelings. Deal with it.{edit: Oh, and if you're honest, you must admit that such a question contains an implicit accusation which requires a personal statement from me either to exonerate myself of your charge or convict myself. VERY VERY foul play. Nasty business there. Argue the issues.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Accuse accuse accuse. That was the whole point of your question and you are going to make sure you get every drop of accusation you can get out of it whether I answer it or not. Your question is nothing but a holier-than-thou bit of bullying. Socratic inquiry doesn't investigate personal attitudes or turn an intellectual discussion into a moral indictment or character assassination. Why should I have to prove anything to you? Deal with the issues, not the person.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Practically speaking it is often not possible to arrive at the fairest judgment, maybe even usually, but I doubt you would say, if you had the responsibility to resolve a moral dilemma, that you wouldn't try to arrive at the very fairest judgment possible.And I'm concluding from this fact, not presupposing, but concluding from this fact that you would try to arrive at the fairest judgment, that there IS an ideal fairest judgment that could conceivably be found; and further, that if in one instance there is an ideal fairest judgment, then in all instances there is an ideal fairest judgment even if we can't arrive at it. And I think the only reason we can't is personal bias and lack of access to all the facts.

What is this supposed to be an example of?There are ways these are not in conflict, if conflict is the point, since conservatives understand economics in terms of the generation of wealth by free enterprise, which leads to all around economic growth, which benefits everyone, which leads to a better future for children and grandchildren, while welfare type thinking is going to impoverish both individuals and the nation. Social security is soon to collapse, for instance, and leave our children and grandchildren with nothing.I think these concepts are way too broad for purposes of this discussion anyway. I think we need some narrow examples, person to person disputes perhaps. What is the ideal resolution for instance of a dispute over a property line, where somebody's tree is overhanging someone else's yard. Something on that level anyway.{edit: OK they were to be examples of goals that are both right yet in conflict. I'm showing how they are not necessarily in conflict, but I still think "goals" gets us away from the topic. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't quite understand what you are saying about the implicit appeal to the divine, but I'm sure you are wrong that "Nazis and others" reject the univeral standards. Just as Lewis says, they no doubt believe themselves to be in the right and would defend themselves just as Lewis says people do: My bolding.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.