Doing what is right in an out of control world

[Sunday21]

Light of Christ - lds with scriptural references https://www.lds.org/topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng

Lds guide to scriptures https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/light-light-of-christ

[FunkyTown]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Not at all. I just insist that before someone claims to 'know' something, such as right from wrong, they must provide an adequate, rational justification; a right to believe what they believe*.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*See my earlier posts on this thread.

Perfect, then you have established a way of knowing universal truth: Rationality.

 

And when I asked how you would know a universal truth, you claimed:

 

Exactly that. How will we know? If we do not know how we are to know right from wrong, my point is demonstrated.

 

So you agree that we can know right from wrong and we can know if we apply rationality?

[2ndRateMind]

Not quite. I think that rationality is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion in this matter.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Not quite. I think that rationality is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion in this matter.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Ah! Then we are in a conundrum and we are now back to the very first question I asked:

How will you know if you know the essence of truth?
 

Because either you believe we are incapable of knowing universal truth or we are capable. If we are capable, then there must be a measuring stick for deciding universal truth. What is that measuring stick, in your estimation?

Edited June 20, 2018 by FunkyTown

[2ndRateMind]

35 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Ah! Then we are in a conundrum and we are now back to the very first question I asked:

How will you know if you know the essence of truth?
 

Because either you believe we are incapable of knowing universal truth or we are capable. If we are capable, then there must be a measuring stick for deciding universal truth. What is that measuring stick, in your estimation?

Sorry. I thought we were discussing right and wrong, and how to distinguish between the moral and immoral, and the ethical from the unethical. Universal truth is pertinent, but secondary to this particular enquiry. We do not yet have a 'Theory of Everything', so clearly humanity has not yet discovered universal truth. Yet, many complacently believe that they do know, in all circumstances, the difference between right and wrong, and are quite prepared to inflict that attitude on everyone else. So, questioning that readiness is the underlying agenda behind my posts on this thread.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Sorry. I thought we were discussing right and wrong, and how to distinguish between the moral and immoral, and the ethical from the unethical. Universal truth is pertinent, but secondary to this particular enquiry. We do not yet have a 'Theory of Everything', so clearly humanity has not yet discovered universal truth. Yet, many complacently believe that they do know, in all circumstances, the difference between right and wrong, and are quite prepared to inflict that attitude on everyone else. So, questioning that readiness is the underlying agenda behind my posts on this thread.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

They believe that they know the truth because they believe that right and wrong are universal truths.

 

You, as well, indicated it is a universal truth when you suggested that we will get 'closer and closer' as we evolve as a society.

 

Are you changing your mind on that? Will we continue to evolve towards truth(Which indicates a universal truth to right and wrong) or will we not evolve, because right and wrong are merely societal constructs, in your mind?

[Sunday21]

How can I know the difference between right and wrong: https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/ss/apostasy-restoration/difference?lang=eng

[2ndRateMind]

28 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

They believe that they know the truth because they believe that right and wrong are universal truths.

It does not necessarily follow that, even if right and wrong are objective reality, (universal truths in your phrasing), humanity in general or any human in particular knew once, know now, or ever will know, exactly what that objective reality is.

For what it's worth, I think there is a 'natural law', which I equate to the 'Will of God'. I just don't think anyone, at this point in history, can claim to know what it is. But, as we learn by our mistakes, there is reason to hope that we will converge on it, barring catastrophe, over generations henceforward. Meanwhile, we just have to make do with the approximations of our own age.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 20, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[askandanswer]

20 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Finally, read the basics of Immanuel Kant, who also discusses natural law

I kant read that - the font is too small

[FunkyTown]

20 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

It does not necessarily follow that, even if right and wrong are objective reality, (universal truths in your phrasing), humanity in general or any human in particular knew once, know now, or ever will know, exactly what that objective reality is.

For what it's worth, I think there is a 'natural law', which I equate to the 'Will of God'. I just don't think anyone, at this point in history, can claim to know what it is. But, as we learn by our mistakes, there is reason to hope that we will converge on it, barring catastrophe, over generations henceforward. Meanwhile, we just have to make do with the approximations of our own age.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And now, we're in the crux of your argument: You do not know objective reality. You also do not have(Or know that you use) the yardstick by which objective truths can be known. 

 

So how do you know the objective truth that nobody else ever did or ever will know the objective truths of right and wrong? You have neither the yardstick of measuring such a thing, nor the thing itself to know if someone else possessed it.

[2ndRateMind]

16 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

And now, we're in the crux of your argument: You do not know objective reality. You also do not have(Or know that you use) the yardstick by which objective truths can be known. 

 

So how do you know the objective truth that nobody else ever did or ever will know the objective truths of right and wrong? You have neither the yardstick of measuring such a thing, nor the thing itself to know if someone else possessed it.

But, I am raising these objections, with all due intellectual humility, to discover whether the forum knows objective reality, or the forum has a yardstick to measure the qualitative attribute of the right, the moral, and the ethical, and if the forum thinks it does, to justify itself on rational grounds.

Again, for what it's worth, my own yardstick is my own conscience. But I will readily admit that this is an entirely subjective method of determining right from wrong, and if the forum has any ideas that I find to be an improvement, and more objective, I will just as readily adopt them. But I still await such an explanation. Perhaps you will oblige?

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

8 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

But, I am raising these objections, with all due intellectual humility, to discover whether the forum knows objective reality, or the forum has a yardstick to measure the qualitative attribute of the right, the moral, and the ethical, and if the forum thinks it does, to justify itself on rational grounds.

Again, for what it's worth, my own yardstick is my own conscience. But I will readily admit that this is an entirely subjective method of determining right from wrong, and if the forum has any ideas that I find to be an improvement, and more objective, I will just as readily adopt them. But I still await such an explanation. Perhaps you will oblige?

Best wishes, 2RM

 

I will and would love to, as soon as you answer my original question:

How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented?

[2ndRateMind]

7 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

I will and would love to, as soon as you answer my original question:

How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented?

I'm not sure I will. That should be quite obvious from the the position I have presented for your consideration.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm not sure I will. That should be quite obvious from the the position I have presented for your consideration.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Then why ask about it? Someone could hand you the objective truth - The answer to life, the universe and everything, and all you would get out of it... All you would gain... Is the chance to either massage your ego by arguing or, in the case of an argument you cannot counter, a chance to feel frustrated and angry that the person you are speaking with does not agree with you.

 

Neither of those sound particularly appealing to me. You claim to be a seeker - One who seeks after truth - But the 'truths' you claim to have are that you have no truth, nor is there any framework by which you may accept a truth given to you by another. Like a boat in the tempest, unmoored, you are tossed to and fro without any grounding or anchor. Others can help someone in that position, but you have to at least recognize what a rope is for you to catch one thrown to you.

[2ndRateMind]

So, you won't answer my original questions: 'do we really know what is right?' and: 'how do we know we know what is right?' unless I pre-agree to agree with you? Doesn't seem like an unbiased exchange of views, to me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 20, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, you won't answer my original questions: 'do we really know what is right?' and: 'how do we know we know what is right?' unless I pre-agree to agree with you? Doesn't seem like an unbiased exchange of views, to me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Is that what you think I said?

[2ndRateMind]

It's what you implied. You could just answer the above two questions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

It's what you implied. You could just answer the above two questions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I could, but you have no way of knowing whether or not I have told you the truth, nor do you have any way of critiquing my analysis since you have no underlying framework by which you can see or interpret the world.

 

Imagine a sighted man speaking to a man blind from birth. The blind man says, "No man in history had sight, nor is there evidence it will ever exist."

 

He dismisses those who claim to have it as delusional, or liars, or both. "Ah hah!" he says, when someone can not describe what an Axolotl is. "One would think a sighted person could describe exactly what one of these strange walking fish are, since they are so odd they would stick in their mind." or "Oh hoh! You cannot describe the physical underpinnings of rods to cones in eyes that allow them to work. Clearly, if eyesight existed, you would understand such an important part of how such a thing works."

 

In that case, the blind man's very dogma blinds him in a very different set to his physical impairment. Until the blind man comes to terms with the idea that someone might have sight, and has decided that there are standards by which he may verify this("Right. What do you see behind you, three hundred yards directly back and 3 yards to the right?"), it is an exercise in futility for both of them.

 

The blind man isn't a seeker in that case. He's simply looking to reaffirm his bias.

[2ndRateMind]

So, it's my fault you have no answer to these questions?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, it's my fault you have no answer to these questions?

Best wishes, 2RM.

"Let he who has ears, let him hear." - Fault isn't really applied here. You have to decide yourself how you will know truth when you see it.

[2ndRateMind]

Well, this conversation is going nowhere fast. I submit that the reason you do not want to address the questions I have posed is that you know full well your answers will persuade no one who isn't already sympathetic to your views. In other words, you lack any significant degree of confidence in the answers you think you have. So, unless you bite the bullet and actually say what you think on this matter, farewell and good luck.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Well, this conversation is going nowhere fast. I submit that the reason you do not want to address the questions I have posed is that you know full well your answers will persuade no one who isn't already sympathetic to your views. In other words, you lack any significant degree of confidence in the answers you think you have. So, unless you bite the bullet and actually say what you think on this matter, farewell and good luck.

Best wishes, 2RM.

So you're saying that your base assumption is that I am wrong and do not have objective truth?

In your words, "Exactly my point."

[2ndRateMind]

3 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

So you're saying that your base assumption is that I am wrong and do not have objective truth?

In your words, "Exactly my point."

So far as I can make out, you have yet to state any position, objective or subjective, true or false, right or wrong, that I can assess in that way. I merely infer from your reluctance to state your opinion that you do not think it decisive or persuasive.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So far as I can make out, you have yet to state any position, objective or subjective, true or false, right or wrong, that I can assess in that way. I merely infer from your reluctance to state your opinion that you do not think it decisive or persuasive.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Fair enough. I am simply asking - As any student would ask a teacher who is assessing their work - How you plan on doing that. You have admitted that you have no framework by which my responses will be judged, nor do you think any framework is currently possible.

 

I have asked repeatedly, "How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented?"

 

And you have stated that you have no way of knowing. If you have no way of knowing, you have no way of assessing. Were you a student and a teacher said, "I want you to make an argument that I will be assessing. I will not share the assessment standards, nor do I think there is any reasonable way such a standard could be reached. I will simply respond according to a whim I admit is arbitrary."

 

How well do you think one could prepare for that argument?

Edited June 20, 2018 by FunkyTown

[Sunday21]

To know a truth Alma asks us to live the commandments, this is planting the seed. If you want to know if the Mormon approach to truth is true, obey the commandments and sincerely humble yourself before God and ask if the church is true. No shortcuts, https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32.21

Edited June 21, 2018 by Sunday21