The reason you're tired of these "ridiculously recursive arguments" we have is because you don't have a clue how to respond to them. And it's impossible for morality to just mean "what is mutually beneficial for society" and I can prove it. Imagine a random guy on the streets accidentally trips you, and you fall to the ground, hurting yourself, but he sincerely apologises. Are you angry with him. No, of course not, if you're a decent person, it was an accident and he said he was sorry. But suppose another random guy on the streets deliberately tries to trip you, but fails. Then you're angry with him, and have good cause to be. But why? In the first instance, a man actually physically hurt you, yet you did not angry at him. In the second instance, you were not hurt at all, and yet you're angry at the man who failed to inflict injury rather than the man who actually did. Why is this? Why are you angry at the one who did nothing to you but not with the one who inflicted harm upon you? Because the first, as he accidentally produced the offence, was not in violation of the Moral Law God established. But the second, even though he failed in his attempt at mischief, did in fact violate this law, which 999 out of 1000 people have some basic awareness of ingrained by God into their conscience. Obviously then, Right cannot merely mean what is good for society, and Wrong cannot merely mean what is bad for it.
In case that one illustration didn't prove the point to you, here's another. Suppose you're in a bus, going to work, and you wanted to sit in the corner seat, but someone else is already there. Are you angry at him personally? No, you understand that he was there first and thus had a right to it. But suppose you sat in that seat, got up because your phone dropped out of your backpack, and another random guy slipped into your seat while you were up? Then are you angry at him? Of course you are. But why? Both men were equally inconvenient to you, and yet… 더 읽어보기
이 논평 가장 먼저 응답 하십시오.