Please permit me one more philosophical post — I’m only posting it because I think you might find it mentally stimulating — I am going after this (so it would be really helpful if none addressed any further questions or comments to me specifically, if that’s OK).

Your comment, Richard, made me think of how at times in religious history people have declared that above all else “G_d is Love” or else “G_d is Truth”. Sometimes people have said “G_d is Justice”. From an atheist perspective, one might conclude that these people have simply “made G_d in their own image” by highlighting their own top priority and calling it G_d: deifying their main priority. Now whether or not we formally call this top priority “G_d” we evidently each have our own motivations that we prioritise. I think many atheists might see themselves as placing truth at the top of their priority list, however stark that truth is. This is seen as a valuable and even a brave stance to take and I would not argue otherwise.

For myself, it might appear (to myself also) that I fluctuate between dual priorities of truth on the one hand and goodness or benevolence on the other (perhaps an indication of the pre-enlightnement world-view that faith and reason must work in tandem). From this it might seem that when I’m emphasising the benevolence priority, I would be prepared to believe something that was less true, or to “bend” the truth until it fit my personal emotional / faith agenda that there must be a specifically benevolence-orientated conclusion at the end of it.

But I think in my own defence I would argue that I have faith that the truth is in itself good and could therefore never come into conflict with benevolence. One could view this in a “chicken and egg” kind of a way. I think the truth dictates and defines what is good, so if the two things appear to clash we need only alter our perception of what good means. On the other hand, one could reject a stark truth on the grounds that it was not good and the truth must be good, otherwise, why would we place such value in it?

So it is an act of faith on my part that should the truth ever appear stark, it is because it is not the truth and benevolence is a truer truth — the benchmark we must measure truth by (placing moral or philosophical “evidence” above material “evidence”). At any rate, faith and reason must not clash, so just as reason should never (in my view) allow itself to wander down the path towards moral evils, so faith must never make itself unreasonable by insisting on believing anything that is contrary to scientific fact.

Take care,
Joanna

I personally think that’s not as plausible as he makes out — but if that’s the way things go, I’ll certainly change my opinion.

The thing is that you have established a moral absolute — just a different one — one that says that killing innocents os wrong. How about we agree that unnecessary killing is wrong? I believe that we should never cause unnecessary suffering or death when such things can be avoided but I do see that as a moral absolute, even though the exact circumstances require discernment and judgement. I think it is a bit like this — in order for grey to exist you must have black and white for it to make sense. The ratio of black to white is what makes grey grey. But if you say there is no black or white, only grey, then nothing can be discerned at all.

Your statement “Everything in life is relative, and every rule has exceptions.” is itself an absolute statement and as such it is a contradiction. We have to agree on some absolutes or axioms for anything to make any sense at all, such as that it is good for things to make sense, that life is preferable to death… the meanings of words… and so on.

I don’t really have any major disagreement with the other things you said — they seem like balanced common sense — I’d just be a little wary of how far to take self re-assurance because people who had done really bad things could use that to justify their actions to themselves and I think we need to reach agreement on the moral foundations of our culture so that people know that certain actions are not going to be tolerated.

I understand your argument, but i still take issue with it based on what I perceive to be flaws in it.

Killing Hitler was OK because he killed innocents that had done no harm (read: To kill a mockingbird). No absolute truth about killing being wrong is necessary. Everything in life is relative, and every rule has exceptions.

While we do try to avoid extremes such as killing, because we like to think of ourselves as intelligent and civilized, sometimes these things are necessary.

Keeping a sense of humility is of course important in all aspects of life, but if something regrettable had to happen, there is no sense in beating yourself up over it. It isn’t a case of not being able to understand a lesser of two evils, we’ve been doing that for ages. It’s simply self re-assurance that the actions we took were necessary, and sometimes this is needed for our own mental well-being.