[
Replying to post 70 by DanieltheDragon]
Quote:
asked and answered. All men can know right/wrong/good/bad via observation of man and man’s relationship with the world we live in via reason and logic. We can observe how the world works, accept and acknowledge the science/biology/order/design and recognize what makes sense.
Flaws:
A.) All humans can know right&wrong
1. Not all humans have the same cognitive ability
2. Not all humans have empathy(some forms of autism and anti-social disorders)
You aren’t seriously arguing this? Of course there exist the rare psychopath who appears to not know right from wrong. This does not negate that right and wrong exist and something the reasonable man can know. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. And if a human being lacks empathy or conscience, there is in fact something wrong with them and if their minds were working correctly, they would know what most can know. Until then, they need our help. It doesn’t mean we dismiss truth.
B.) we can observe how the world works
1. People share different perspectives and will observe and reach different conclusions
2. People have different environmental life experiences
3. Sociological behaviors vary from region to region what one might observe in one area could be totally different in another.
Actually social science shows universal truths. All societies in all times value friendship, loyalty, etc. We of course have different tastes/preferences, but all individuals for example agree rape is wrong.
C.) order/design
1. Nature is not ordered or designed therefore there is no design or order to observe. Any claims in this regard are mere projection.
I’m not asking you to give God credit, but no one can deny the world works in a certain way. You can call it whatever you like – makes no difference to me, but you do have to acknowledge it.
My question to you is what happens when two people of equal intelligence observe how the world works and reach different conclusions on morality?
Is this indicative of natural law?
Like what? Can you give an example?
People differ all the time on what they might think is true or not, it doesn’t mean truth does not exist. It might simply mean some people are getting it wrong (there are several things that can block or prevent a person from recognizing truth).
You might have thought you argued that but you only tried to argue about anal penetration. Which also was an incomplete argument since you failed to include observations that show that biological climax can be acheived via anal penetration which would indicate an adaptation incorporating sexual intercourse into the anal region. Hence, it is natural to have anal intercourse. This of course also excludes any psychological benefits that people attain via climax as well as physiological benefits such as reduced stress blood pressure etc.
I already corrected the problems with your argument. Natural Law does not simply mean that which is natural or observed in nature. Again, a human being can achieve pleasure by screwing a chimp – that does not mean he should. Also, my example of anal sex was simply a quick reference for argumentative purposes and of course is incomplete in the entire argument showing the
wrongness of homosexual acts. There are many other observations and scientific facts that demonstrate this wrongness as well. I was merely using one example for argumentative purposes. There are studies showing the importance of a child being raised by both a mother and a father and this isn’t a single parent vs. “couple� household. The studies show the importance of having two sexes raise a child. Again, this is yet one more demonstration from nature pointing to the wrongness of same sex unions.
I would say your argument needs more work as it is to niche to actually even be applied against homosexuality as more heterosexuals have anal intercourse than homosexuals.
First, I question your stat. Second, I would say your argument needs a little work -- if more people lied than told the truth does that mean lying is good?