Replies

No I have not.

<><><><

I’m sorry, but you have.

You cannot presume, as you have, that those universal moral laws are transcendant, and not the result of trial and error in groups of humans living together.

Likewise, logic. The notion that A=A is an empirical observation that has been made into a ‘law’.

And before y’all join together to kick my a$$, I was philosophy major in college, having graduated 30 some years ago. I am not a strict materialist by any stretch, but folks do themselves no favors by being simply misinformed.

"You cannot presume, as you have, that those universal moral laws are transcendant, and not the result of trial and error in groups of humans living together."

I most certainly can as these laws are universal and you can't provide a shred of evidence that they are "the result of trial and error", Many are counter-productive to survival and counter intuitive. I'm not even sure what "trial and error " means in this context of a demonstrably innate, universal phenomenon veiwed across widely separated groups in time and space that have had no interaction among each other.

Also please show me how you touch, taste, see, smell or hear A=A or A does not equal not-A. Please measure it it for me. I'm not sure what your being a philosophy major 30 years ago has to do with it - Alan Plantinga, chair of Philosophy at Notre Dame and one of the most, if not THE most, repsected American philosophers today agrees with my side of this argument. That doesn't in itself make it right but it certinly counter-balances your 30 year old major.

You cannot presume, as you have, that those universal moral laws are transcendant, and not the result of trial and error in groups of humans living together.

You say he can not presume it...but you seem to mean he did; rather what you seem to mean is that if he does presume it his reasoning is not valid; if so you are using the priori that reason is objective to make this evaluation.

Trial and error in your example would have to do with discovering a moral system that is preferable to those with influence on its development. There are many such subsystems of morality, for example pork packages in legislatures being considered ok among experienced legislatures. But in real life, these examples are often degradations of morality rather than the discovery of it. Most of us judge pork to be unmoral. But then on a materialist view I am not sure how our judgement could be considered more valid than that of the pork peddling politician.