(1) Russell has not given any specific response to the distinction
>drawn between what is ontologically posited and what is epistemologically
>"proveable." What kind of an ONTOLOGICAL connection does the naturalistic
>evolutionaist have to justify a universal moral obligation? My contention:
>there is none.
Russell responds:
<<I don't understand what you're asking here. You'll have to be a little more
clear.>>
This is a cop out, Russ. You are an intelligent guy! You can certainly
understand this if you try. Rich is perfectly clear. The lack may simply be in
your understanding of philosophical terms. That being so, you are the one who
oght to do a little more work here. This can be a good thing for you.
<<And I provide a similar logic: IF one has empathy for others' emotions, THEN
the logical course of action is to respect others' rights. Of course, one will
ask: what if one *doesn't* have empathy for others' emotions? Well, as I have
said, the vast majority of people do.>>
This is, of course, a material fallacy you have committed. And it's a big one.
Watch:
1. Emathy >> Rights (this itself is erroneous, but let's accept it for now)
2. Non-empathy >> no rights (the logical consequence of your premises)
3. The answer to #2 is: Most people have empathy >> rights.
This is self-contradictory. Under your system, rights are premised on empathy.
But if there is not empathy, rights cannot be established by claiming most
people DO have empathy. That's a big circle, you see? You have not provided an
answer, you have only avoided the question.
<<And for that minority who don't, we have laws, police, and jails to deal
with them.>>
This, again, is irrelevant to the question of "rights." It only deals with who
is caught and who is not.
<<Fine. Your logic is perfect IF your initial assumption is true.>>
Absolutely correct.
<<That still doesn't gain you anything, and it *certainly* doesn't make your
system any more logical than mine.>>
Absolutely incorrect. Your system cannot logically support objective morality,
as demonstrated above and on numerous other occasions.
Jim