In effect, then, your argument is that not every single human being in existence will act, react, or believe in the saw way in different circumstances.
Which is very nearly saying nothing at all. And certainly saying nothing of interest.
It's very nearly saying nothing at all, certainly isn't of great interest, and wouldn't need to be said at all except in rebuttal to your sweeping generalisations.
You claimed that laws - in particular, the speeding laws - originated through conscience when the creators of those laws had moral truth imparted to them via conscience, and that this was evidence of absolute moral values.
I posited situations in which this wasn't necessarily true.
You claimed that I would have the exact same moral response to speed-related accidents as you would, making my point invalid.
I responded that not everyone is the same, making the possibility of a different moral reaction or the origination of laws other than through conscience completely possible.
You then agreed with me to the extent that you now think I'm pointing out the blindingly obvious...odd, really, as you're agreeing with the fact which underlies the rebuttal to your point, and then accusing me of not being interesting when I feel the need to point it out.
Yes, but your dislike of beetroot, and Fred's liking of it does not mean that beetroot has no existence independent of your own subjective actions, reactions and beliefs about beetroot.
Fred and I do not quibble over the existence of beetroot. We quibble over its qualities. Many of these qualities, being subjective, are judged independently and have little to do with the intrinsic properties of said beetroot.
We view beetroot differently. Hard, then, to claim that it is an Absolute Truth that beetroot is nice.
Who is this "we" you are referring to? Is there a group of you huddled over the keyboard, or do you have split personality disorder?
My many braincells are addressing your one.
So, what you are saying is that self-interest is possible. As above, big deal.
...meaning that not all moral decisions need to be derived from conscience or absolute moral truth, negating your ability to use this claim as evidence of an absolute moral truth's existence.
Again, you're now claiming that this is so blindingly obvious that it's not worth pointing out. You're not quite your own worst enemy. More your own arch-nemesis. Do you piddle in your own cornflakes and then cry when they taste funny?
So you are agreeing with me. Some people have a better developed conscience than others. The ones with less developed consciences are more prone to selfishness. The fact that this happens has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there exists moral truth beyond the individual.
You claimed that conscience was a conduit of absolute moral truth. I'm claiming it isn't.
If I claim that conscience is the conduit of the wishes of the Loch Ness Monster, and people perceive it to one level or another depending on how well their conscience is developed, it is as unprovable as your argument and yet strangely more satisfying.
Some people have impaired sight. They may not see the tomato heading in their direction. But that does not mean the tomato does not exist independently of themselves.
Then how do you decide whose conscience is best developed and attuned to the Absolute Moral Truth? We have tests for eyesight, and we can give a level of independent verification to the results. How do we decide who is best plumbed into the Truth of the Universe and let them write our laws? And if we can't...what use are these absolute truths anyway?
With humour it is not terribly important for us, as a society, to be able to agree on, and formulate in words some system that reflects the underlying truth behind our individual perceptions.
With morality it is indispensable that we do this.
So you mixing morality and humour in this way is just a bit silly.
Ah, but no.
With morality, as with humour, there is no objective and absolute value, so while it would be more useful to us to have access to absolute truth in the former case, neither case actually grants it to us. Hence, a parallel is justified.
You not seeing the similarity here is just a bit silly.
In addition, we do not, in morality, "agree on and formulate in words some system that reflects the underlying truth behind our individual perceptions". We agree on and formulate in words some system that reflects our individual perceptions; there is no suggestion that in doing so we have arrived at some underlying truth. A law which is popular is not more 'true'. Truth is not derived from Gallup polls.
