imbiguous wrote:But logic functions only so far in discussing moral claims.
Well, it might at the moment, but that doesn't mean it never will. Granted, we don't know it ever will, but just because we don't know now is not enough to claim that we will always have a system of ethics that is based upon narrative relativism.
This of course is always the case. But given that philosophers have had approximately 2500 years to turn the narratives into universals, it seems improbable that they will in my view.
One thing that is important to note is that not all situations might have 'best' answers: an ethical agent might be caught in a situation in which all possible actions have some degree of immorality, or which are all equally immoral. This does not mean that the logic of ethics has failed, but rather that it is possible for really bad situations to exist.
But how does the "best answer" given a particular situation differ from an ethical choice deemed to be universally applicable? My conjecture is that, sans God, "logic" revolves more around coming up with
the best answer. Although there are likely to be differing narratives here as well.
I do not see anything 'special' about abortion as an ethical scenario, by which I mean: I don't think that this is evidence that logic will never do the trick. Abortion has related data, and that data would be used in the logic. But it is one of the most controversial scenarios today, and I can understand that many people cannot imagine an answer to it.
Abortion revolves literally around life and death. It generates intense emotional and psychological reactions. It is never far from a headline.
But we can choose any lesser conflict. For example, is public nudity unethical?
How can answers to questions like this be more than just shared narratives?
iambiguous wrote:Without a transcendental, objective font, our moral values can only be points of view. And history bears this out all too well.
Well, this too is a point of view, and in a previous post you heard mine - that ethics is logically related to free will, and the possibility of a logical set of ethics lies there.
But each "will" is a manifestation of dasein, in my opinion. You can only choose behaviors based on how you view the world and your place in it. And to what extent can this encompass the omnisicent POV of God? If, for example, you were asked your view on capital punishment how could your values here not reflect merely the existential assessment of one particular man or women? How much more is there to know about it that no one single point of view can encompass?
History also bears out a lot of stuff, much of which eventually changed: the earth is no longer flat, the universe no longer static, time no longer absolute (though there are still some fierce components). However, at some point for each of these ideas, it was the case that for 99% of history was filled with people believing it. Well, if logical ethics exists, we would be somewhere in that 99% (hopefully near the end, though).
Yes, but these are not moral questions. Logic prevailed here because a universal truth was able to be disclosed
by one or another branch of science.
My aim is to focus on those objective truths that transcend dasein, and those subjective [intersubjective] truths that do not. What can we denote objectively and what can we only connote existentially instead.
Without God, you say - but I am still curious to know where God got ethics from. Did he make it up? If he did, is it just a matter of his opinion and not ours? Was it a natural truth which he saw? That would suggest a valid independent logic of ethics. I have a similar opinion for the question, Did god make maths?
Only God knows the answers to questions like this. But where is
He to provide them?