The relativist position seeks to reach a conclusion in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, succumbing to the very logical blunder that they pose their arguments against! The absence of evidence of a suprapurpose for our species implied through our general knowledge of the world does not mean that there is no possibility of an objective and general prescriptive guide to life. Concluding so is similar to concluding that since we can't see aliens, they must not exist. If we are to simplify this further, we must eventually state that an answer is not possible without a question. When we are making statements about matters regarding which a question has not been asked, we're operating on the assumption that the information our statements
…show more content…
The reason it shouldn't be should be clear at this stage. Our purpose should not overlook the precision and accuracy of what actually is and is not simply for what ought to be and this is precisely what most moral codes do. Religions have been exceedingly effective tools when it comes to enforcing their version of morality, the only problem is that such versions have been too limited in their goals, too philistine in their conclusions, as well as irrationally apathetic and non-inclusive of certain moral patients. They are not internally consistent, they are not grounded in logic, their considerations are not pensive, their sources fantastical, their validity precarious, and their practical implications often …show more content…
Perhaps it is. Except, our investigative endeavor for morality will be epistemologically superior. We will nurture it with intellectual care, feed a self-questioning nature in its programming, and allow it to grow to be inclusive of all the rational considerations that one can draw from physical reality, with metaphysical considerations operating inferiorly under the multi-layered and logically well-knit ideological machinery. And yet, we cannot go as far as promising that any such project can be perfect. We are also not here to participate in the construction of such machinery, for that can only be incremental and probably infinitely more time consuming. We are merely here to posit and argue for the possible existence of something of the sort. We are merely claiming that such an idea is logically staid, that it's philosophical and perhaps practical actualization is not
The reason it shouldn't be should be clear at this stage. Our purpose should not overlook the precision and accuracy of what actually is and is not simply for what ought to be and this is precisely what most moral codes do. Religions have been exceedingly effective tools when it comes to enforcing their version of morality, the only problem is that such versions have been too limited in their goals, too philistine in their conclusions, as well as irrationally apathetic and non-inclusive of certain moral patients. They are not internally consistent, they are not grounded in logic, their considerations are not pensive, their sources fantastical, their validity precarious, and their practical implications often …show more content…
Perhaps it is. Except, our investigative endeavor for morality will be epistemologically superior. We will nurture it with intellectual care, feed a self-questioning nature in its programming, and allow it to grow to be inclusive of all the rational considerations that one can draw from physical reality, with metaphysical considerations operating inferiorly under the multi-layered and logically well-knit ideological machinery. And yet, we cannot go as far as promising that any such project can be perfect. We are also not here to participate in the construction of such machinery, for that can only be incremental and probably infinitely more time consuming. We are merely here to posit and argue for the possible existence of something of the sort. We are merely claiming that such an idea is logically staid, that it's philosophical and perhaps practical actualization is not