tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post112803064846913757..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Back to the Existence of Moral Values Beyond the PersonalHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128694214161662812005-10-07T10:10:00.000-04:002005-10-07T10:10:00.000-04:00"there's not much I can do if everytime I show you..."<I>there's not much I can do if everytime I show you an example of other belief systems you just assume they are lying.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. I don't believe that I'm wrong, but I'm just wasting your time if I can't provide you with more than my speculation. The only readings (a handful of articles) I've seen justify Roma behavior as 'subsistance stealing', but its hard for me to know if they're capturing the real morality of the people or just 'making an excuse' for their behavior. [I would be interested in looking at any articles about them that address this issue, if you would care to point me to them.]<BR/><BR/>"<I>As I see it there are far far too many cases (including cases where the lie would have had to have been planned out decades before contact with westerners) in the world of alternate moral view points exemplified by cultures for this to be the case.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I don't know...I think people are exceptionally good at lying to themselves. Especially when the lie projects out or justifies their behavior relative to someone else. But the genius behind the golden rule (do unto others...) is that when the circumstances are reversed, we get a better picture of what a person truly believes.<BR/>---<BR/>FYI, I'm happy to keep going with you here Tlaloc, but it looks like its only you and me here now, and we're still argueing whether their are moral commonalities between societies. We haven't even discussed whether or not it would be significant if there were.<BR/><BR/>If you want to pull the plug, let me know.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128636683748561802005-10-06T18:11:00.000-04:002005-10-06T18:11:00.000-04:00No, I get it, I was just avoiding it because I don...No, I get it, I was just avoiding it because I don't have access to the relevant facts.<BR/><BR/>I question the honesty (the Roma's, not yours) of their belief that property belongs to everyone. It's one thing to live communally, and to agree to share all property. It's quite another to believe that property belongs to everyone when outsiders have explicitly shown that they do not agree.<BR/><BR/>One has to wonder what their reaction would be to an outsider taking away all of their possessions, or kidnapping family members. <B>Any surprise or outrage would betray their 'principle' of communal property.</B> (Go to a communal society like JPUSA sometime and walk out of a room with a pair of shoes, and the first thing you'll here as you're walking down the hall is "Dude, those are MY shoes!") I would also add that the Roma's use of deceitful tactics in order to obtain someone else's property does not exactly inspire thoughts of moral integrity either.<BR/><BR/>If you want to argue that outside oppression (and from the little I know, it was significant) forced them into a life of 'subsistence stealing', that would be different. But it would also be an acknowledgement that taking property without permission is stealing, and is only justified by extreme circumstances.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128614667538687182005-10-06T12:04:00.000-04:002005-10-06T12:04:00.000-04:00Behavior is the action a person chooses after comp...<I>Behavior is the action a person chooses after comparing their desires/impulses against a value/belief structure in response to external stimuli.</I><BR/><BR/>Um, actually, no, it's not. Behavior is a series of conscious and unconscious reactions to stimuli. Some of this behavior is instinctual, but more often it is ingrained learned behavior resulting from experiences with past stimuli.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to take a moment to point out that I am a member of the California Association for Behavior Analysis. Behaviorism was, for several years, a part of my work and is now a big part of my intellectual interests.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I'm just being semantic. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just place "moral" in front of "behavior." <BR/><BR/>In answer to your question, I am wholly convinced that value/belief structures are external impositions. Some morals may be the conscious expression of instinctive behavior patterns, but certainly not all. I believe that in order to essentially prove a "natural law" you have to engage in a massively reductionist argument. And I think I'm done. It was a very stimulating and respectful conversation that I enjoyed immensely. Thank you for all your input. It certainly forced me to think hard and to consider ideas I had glossed over previously.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128609734898254842005-10-06T10:42:00.000-04:002005-10-06T10:42:00.000-04:00"Behavior is a complex thing. Behavior stems from ..."<I>Behavior is a complex thing. Behavior stems from complex schema we develop. We learn these schema from our experiences, our culture, parental uprbringing, experiences, and our perceptions of these experiences. Schema can be modified as further experiences are assimilated. These schema interact with genetically encoded physiological response patterns.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Obviously I agree with you that behavior is complex, and external influences are very significant. But let's try to break it down...<BR/><BR/>Behavior is the action a person chooses after comparing their desires/impulses against a value/belief structure in response to external stimuli. I would tend to view your notion of 'genetically encoded physiological response patterns' and equate that to my notion of desires/impulses. But what is the origin of the value/belief structure? Is it <I>entirely</I> the result of external influences? Or is it more likely that those influences have helped strengthen, develop and shape (or the opposite) something that was already there?Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128606515384316662005-10-06T09:48:00.000-04:002005-10-06T09:48:00.000-04:00"You're moving the goal posts again, folks. Now yo..."<I>You're moving the goal posts again, folks. Now you're taking a contrary example and claiming that it simply disregards "natural law" instead of refuting it. As pointed out before, now the debate dissolves into semantics, and once you've done that, it's all... wait for it... relative.</I><BR/><BR/>Capitalism, communism, socialism are examples of morally neutral structures that societies choose to organize themselves in. We may prefer one to the others because of the way that people tend to react in these systems, but in and of themselves they are not good/bad.<BR/><BR/>Within their society, the Roma had explicit permission to take each other's property. Therefore, they had virtually eliminated the chance to violate the natural law of taking someone's property without permission. But that isn't evidence of a society not acknowledging the existence of the natural law.<BR/><BR/>I don't think you can flag me for moving the posts this time, James. [Although, I did enjoy your pause for dramatic effect at the end.]Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128548858832970812005-10-05T17:47:00.000-04:002005-10-05T17:47:00.000-04:00Matt is right ... their society rendered this part...<I>Matt is right ... their society rendered this particular part of the universal moral code useless (at least thats what I think Matt was saying).</I><BR/><BR/>You're moving the goal posts again, folks. Now you're taking a contrary example and claiming that it simply disregards "natural law" instead of refuting it. As pointed out before, now the debate dissolves into semantics, and once you've done that, it's all... wait for it... <I>relative</I>.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128545664257962432005-10-05T16:54:00.000-04:002005-10-05T16:54:00.000-04:00"Their view of property is part of what lead to th..."Their view of property is part of what lead to them being associated with theivery by other groups because they acted according to their moral code."<BR/><BR/>If the property was not theirs, then it was not theivery.<BR/><BR/>Matt is right ... their society rendered this particular part of the universal moral code useless (at least thats what I think Matt was saying).Barry Vanhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04006891046091646808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128540615649800872005-10-05T15:30:00.000-04:002005-10-05T15:30:00.000-04:00"My understanding of traditional Roma culture is t..."<I>My understanding of traditional Roma culture is that they considered a person to own a thing only if they were actively using it at the time.</I>"<BR/><BR/>So within their own society, they were communal. Everyone understood that property belonged to the entire group. This would certainly not violate the moral principle of not taking someone else's property without permission, it would merely render it useless.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128533317161351612005-10-05T13:28:00.000-04:002005-10-05T13:28:00.000-04:00"However, you are defining those "remarkably simil..."<I>However, you are defining those "remarkably similar" principals from your own sociocultural perspective. This subjectivity is what relativism is all about.</I>"<BR/><BR/>"<I>You are arguing that because all humans, just like all animals, want to survive, and come up with conscious explanations and fabrications to excuse that behavior - whatever said behavior is - that argues for a universal moral law.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I think it's about time we left the Aztec example behind, because it confuses evolutionary survival issues with what we're trying to talk about.<BR/><BR/>I had earlier asked Tlaloc for examples of divergent morals from other societies, and he provided several. The Roma example he mentioned interests me, but I'm afraid I have a limited understanding of their society. I assume the point here is going to be that they believed that subsistance stealing was OK?<BR/><BR/>Maybe someone could elaborate on this a little more for me.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128530910366964362005-10-05T12:48:00.000-04:002005-10-05T12:48:00.000-04:00Matt, that explains it much better. Thank you for ...Matt, that explains it much better. Thank you for the clarification. I still believe you are wrong, but now I at least have a clearer picture.<BR/><BR/><I>Now my observation from all of this is that all societies seem to justify their behavior against a remarkably similar set of moral principles.</I><BR/><BR/>However, you are defining those "remarkably similar" principals from your own sociocultural perspective. This subjectivity is what relativism is all about. <BR/><BR/>The essential reduction of the absolutist arguments presented here hinges on the existence of innate survival-based responses, as expressed through human behavior. Culture is, after all, an aspect of human behavior, if a cooperative one, and one that creates a feedback loop. You are arguing that because all humans, just like all animals, want to survive, and come up with conscious explanations and fabrications to excuse that behavior - whatever said behavior is - that argues for a universal moral law.<BR/><BR/>I believe we've addressed the difficulties of elevating evolutionary survival traits to the status of morals above.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128526018778199012005-10-05T11:26:00.000-04:002005-10-05T11:26:00.000-04:00"Matt, that doesn't even follow in a remotely logi..."<I>Matt, that doesn't even follow in a remotely logical fashion. You were arguing Tlaloc's point. You argued that the Aztec's actions made sense from their cultural perspective. You then say that because people in the same cultural milieus act similarly, that proves a universal moral standard. That doesn't flow logically. You modified what you said previously.<BR/><BR/>You can't move the goal posts just become someone scores against you, man.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I'll try again...I don't know if I moved the goal posts, but I think I let the analogy get away from me.<BR/><BR/>I'm saying that there is a law of human nature (natural law) that all people reference in order to make morally justified behavioral choices. The behavioral choices themselves are value-neutral (ie killing is not always wrong).<BR/><BR/>Now, what's interesting is that when questioned about their behavior, people will justify it by referencing moral principles that look remarkably similar from once society to the next.<BR/><BR/>In the Aztec example, they justify mass sacrifice by stating that it was required in order to satisfy the moral principle of caring for/preserving the planet. I'm saying that this moral principle that they reference is timeless and universal. And if the facts were that the earth was going to come to an end tomorrow, and we had reliable* info that the only* way to stop it was to commit mass sacrifice, then morally we should do it.<BR/><BR/>(* There are all kinds of reasons for saying that the Aztecs were acting immorally here, but I'm trying to keep the variables to a minimum.)<BR/><BR/>Now my observation from all of this is that all societies seem to justify their behavior against a remarkably similar set of moral principles. They may not make good choices because they are based on unreliable information or because people are being dishonest in their application, but the principles referenced still seem very much the same.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128453810126381682005-10-04T15:23:00.000-04:002005-10-04T15:23:00.000-04:00Matt, that doesn't even follow in a remotely logic...Matt, that doesn't even follow in a remotely logical fashion. You were arguing Tlaloc's point. You argued that the Aztec's actions made sense from their cultural perspective. You then say that because people in the same cultural milieus act similarly, that proves a universal moral standard. That doesn't flow logically. You modified what you said previously.<BR/><BR/>You can't move the goal posts just become someone scores against you, man.<BR/><BR/><I>My point is that the Aztect moral code, when you allow for a mistake in fact, appears to be similar to our moral code.</I><BR/><BR/>You're really going to have to explain what you mean by that. Are you arguing that, say, Aztecs who sacrificed people to keep the Earth in balance and Krakatoans who sacrificed virgins to appease volcanoes were operating on essentially the same moral function? In effect, you are arguing that actions make the morals. You're taking similar responses given moderately similar metaphysical beliefs and making a side-by-side comparison. That's ridiculous.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm saying that there is a difference between our desires/impulses and the <B>justification</B> for choosing to act on them. Our impulses (sex, killing, patriotism, etc.) are value-neutral. The moral law tells us how to act when our impulses compete with one another.</I><BR/><BR/>You (and the others) keep returning to this point without addressing the difficulties in pathologizing and justifications that have been articulated above. Rather than refute said difficulties, you choose to keep running in to them. Essentially, "justification" is a straw man; it's a construction that allows you to "refute" counterexamples in a semantic rather than logical fashion. All morals are a justification of action or inaction, Matt, and can be parsed multiple ways.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128451928821905142005-10-04T14:52:00.000-04:002005-10-04T14:52:00.000-04:00"Your example doesn't even work since in both case..."<I>Your example doesn't even work since in both cases you give you do advocate killing given the circumstances. Someone who truly believed your "universal moral" would be an absolute pacifist like the Jains.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I'm saying that there is a difference between our desires/impulses and the justification for choosing to act on them. Our impulses (sex, killing, patriotism, etc.) are value-neutral. The moral law tells us how to act when our impulses compete with one another.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128450639290050812005-10-04T14:30:00.000-04:002005-10-04T14:30:00.000-04:00"Were morals really intransient then we should not..."<I>Were morals really intransient then we should not be able to swap out our godly righteous civilization with that godless pagan civilization and have people behave the same. And yet we most certainly would.</I>"<BR/><BR/>You are arguing my point. I state that all people are subject to the same natural law, therefore, different people will reference the same standard and (if they are acting in alignment with their values) respond similarly.<BR/><BR/>Hunter said...<BR/>"<I>If we can identify strong commonalities and justifications for the things that diverge from commonalities, then I would argue we have identified something like a natural moral law.</I><BR/><BR/>As part of one of your responses, you offered the Aztecs as an example of a society with a radically different set of morals than ours. My point is that the Aztect moral code, when you allow for a mistake in fact, appears to be similar to our moral code.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you could provide some other examples of societies with wildly divergent moralities.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128449806524658392005-10-04T14:16:00.000-04:002005-10-04T14:16:00.000-04:00Matt ... you're right on target. If you believed ...Matt ... you're right on target. If you believed that a witch was going to kill you and then eat you, you'd kill the witch (or burn it).<BR/><BR/>If you believed the intruder into your home was going to kill you, you might try to kill the intruder.<BR/><BR/>These situations do not contradict the basic universal moral code that <B>we ought not intentionally take the life of another human being</B>.Barry Vanhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04006891046091646808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128448329883202342005-10-04T13:52:00.000-04:002005-10-04T13:52:00.000-04:00I guess I have trouble understanding where these v...<I>I guess I have trouble understanding where these values/beliefs come from if they are separate from our desires and are not (entirely) the result of external influences.</I><BR/><BR/>Behavior is a complex thing. Behavior stems from complex schema we develop. We learn these schema from our experiences, our culture, parental uprbringing, experiences, and our perceptions of these experiences. Schema can be modified as further experiences are assimilated. These schema interact with genetically encoded physiological response patterns. <BR/><BR/>Nothing says that something internal doesn't play some sort of role. But by interacting with the outside world, which varies in both occurence and perception from individual to individual, behavior, beliefs, and values will vary from person to person.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128447950254590672005-10-04T13:45:00.000-04:002005-10-04T13:45:00.000-04:00If you and I believed that mass sacrifice was abso...<I>If you and I believed that mass sacrifice was absolutely required in order to keep the sun rising and the earth spinning, our moral response (the thing we ought to do) would probably look very similar to theirs.</I><BR/><BR/>So let me get this straight, Huisman: You're arguing that people will change their moral responses based on their cultural understanding of reality?<BR/><BR/>How is this not moral relativity?<BR/><BR/>Or are you arguing that people's responses to moral imperatives (whatever those imperatives are) argue for a universal morality? I'm having trouble seeing the flow of that logic.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128447044025441172005-10-04T13:30:00.000-04:002005-10-04T13:30:00.000-04:00"1) does morality exist? Yes, I know it exists bec..."<I>1) does morality exist? Yes, I know it exists because I have a moral code which inhibits me from certain actions. Morality is a function of higher (sentient) thought which is self evaluating. It only exists within such frameworks of sentience. Inanimate objects or simple life forms are themselves amoral.</I>"<BR/><BR/>So then you would more or less agree with the statement that behavior is the outcome of the interplay between desires and values/beliefs, and that moral behavior occurs when our actions are in alignment with these values.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Morality most likely develops much as any personality: as a combination of individual nature, biological make up, and personal experience including social influences.</I>"<BR/><BR/>This implies that while there certainly are external influences on our morality, there is something already in (or pressing on) us that says things ought to be a certain way.<BR/><BR/>I can understand the source of our desires, but in order for us to evaluate/reflect on them, it seems like there needs to be a standard that we are comparing our desires against...and it looks like that standard can't be entirely explained by outside influences.<BR/><BR/>I guess I have trouble understanding where these values/beliefs come from if they are separate from our desires and are not (entirely) the result of external influences.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128446871627012922005-10-04T13:27:00.000-04:002005-10-04T13:27:00.000-04:00"But you want to maintain that our version of real..."<I>But you want to maintain that our version of reality is superior. Can't you see how that is an explicitly egocentric evaluation?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I didn't say anything about their version of reality being better/worse than ours. I said that the difference between their behavior and ours was explained by a misunderstanding of fact. If you and I believed that mass sacrifice was absolutely required in order to keep the sun rising and the earth spinning, our moral response (the thing we ought to do) would probably look very similar to theirs.<BR/><BR/>I'm arguing that the Aztec example is not evidence of wildly different morals between societies...if we would do the same thing in their situation, that's hardly a difference.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128442163838303212005-10-04T12:09:00.000-04:002005-10-04T12:09:00.000-04:00"The Aztecs had mass human sacrifices in a manner ..."<I>The Aztecs had mass human sacrifices in a manner we find barbaric in extremus.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Is this really a difference of moral principle or is this a case where a culture did not understand certain matters of fact? My understanding is that the Aztecs believed they needed these sacrifices in order to keep the earth spinning and the sun rising (or something like that).<BR/><BR/>I don't see this as an exception to the law of human nature...this looks like a case of morality gone bad due to a serious misunderstanding of reality.Matt Huismanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09972662349345412127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128384522328485232005-10-03T20:08:00.000-04:002005-10-03T20:08:00.000-04:00The reason I am trying to get a better understandi...The reason I am trying to get a better understanding of what <I>moral</I> means is because I think I am getting a redundant argument from the relativists.<BR/><BR/>Please bear with me:<BR/><BR/>We have heard from relativists that morals are individual, and they are based upon society, surroundings, life experiences (etc...I may not have that exactly right, but its close I believe).<BR/><BR/>James Elliot: "A disciplined, rigorous relativist (such as I am trying to become) is still free to say there is a right or a wrong. What I must understand is that I am projecting my internal processes when I do so, processes that are influenced by (but not limited to) personal ethics, morals, society, culture, and maybe religion (though not in my personal case)."<BR/><BR/>My point? If morals are an end result of ones society, surroundings etc..., why even claim that you are influenced by morals?<BR/><BR/>For example, if you look on the ingredient list of, say, chocolate chip cookies and it says:<BR/><BR/>Flour, sugar, eggs, baking powder, cookie dough, and chocolate chips,<BR/><BR/>Why put the "cookie dough" in the ingredient list if it consists entirely of the "other ingredients"?Barry Vanhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04006891046091646808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128382429840057492005-10-03T19:33:00.000-04:002005-10-03T19:33:00.000-04:00Just to try to briefly cut through, I think the ke...Just to try to briefly cut through, I think the key question is whether we can find ANY common themes in these endless individual moralities of which you speak, although I think it would be better to speak of community moralities because a unique individual code is probably pretty rare. <BR/><BR/>If we can identify strong commonalities and justifications for the things that diverge from commonalities, then I would argue we have identified something like a natural moral law. <BR/><BR/>Plants, animals, etc. are excluding because the natural law is a function of reasoning creatures who give reasons for their choices and conduct.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128379522731811332005-10-03T18:45:00.000-04:002005-10-03T18:45:00.000-04:00"If you really feel that it is wrong to ride the e..."If you really feel that it is wrong to ride the elevator then you are acting immorally, not amorally. Amoral means without morals at all. Immoral means having morals and not acting in accordance with them."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks for the correction; you answered the question that I meant to ask.Barry Vanhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04006891046091646808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128374657020657602005-10-03T17:24:00.000-04:002005-10-03T17:24:00.000-04:00Let me make my statement again:If you are limited ...Let me make my statement again:<BR/><BR/>If you are limited to viewing the actions of <I>others</I> (ie, do not look inside ones-self) you must conclude that there are no morals.<BR/><BR/>This is simlpy because all types of human behaviour, or specifically human interaction, exist.<BR/><BR/>In other words, you will always be able to find a counter argument for <B>any</B> so-called moral.<BR/><BR/>What is the point of any argument being called <I>moral</I> at all, if we cannot come to an agreement as to what <I>moral</I> means?<BR/><BR/>I feel guilty when I ride the elevator up one floor, are you suggesting that I am acting amoral, that I am breaking my own moral law?<BR/><BR/>I am certainly not trying to be cute, I am trying to understand what it is that you are calling <I>moral</I>; what specifically makes an action fall under the umbrella of <I>morals</I>.<BR/><BR/>I apologize if this has been defined and I somehow missed it; like the rest of you I have other obligations other than RCing.Barry Vanhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04006891046091646808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1128369568171374322005-10-03T15:59:00.000-04:002005-10-03T15:59:00.000-04:00If we limit ourselves to viewing the actions of ot...<I> If we limit ourselves to viewing the actions of others, the only logical conclusion would be that there are NO moral values at all.</I><BR/><BR/>This is hardly true. We can only logically conclude that there are many types of morality, and many of them are contrary and many of them are complementary. <BR/><BR/>CLA, you are attempting to devolve moral relativism into some form of solipsism. That was tried by Homnick, and to as little effect. If that is the grand extent of your refutation, I'm afraid it falls short. Tlaloc is merely demonstrating the greatest lesson of Socrates: Know thyself. After all, to look at it from your side of the argument, didn't Socrates say that such was the essence of coming to know any greater truths?James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.com