Good and Evil: Universals?

[juju]

Well, let's back up. I'm saying that humans come up with morals themselves, and you're saying that they just "exist" outside of humans' influence, immutable. Is that right?

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Juju, that's a categorical fallacy.

What is a "categorical fallacy"? Is that a fancy way of saying I'm wrong? Whoops, I don't want to dilute the definition too much. We've got to be precise.

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Scientific proofs are proper to the realm of physical things, and their interactions (mass, energy, chemical properties).

Universals are not the proper subjects of the scientific method. To assume that something is only true if it is scientifically provable is to exclude vast portions of the edifice of human knowledge.

Nothing exists outside of reality except maybe ideas. Are you trying to say that your ideas are so correct that they've trancended the concept of "idea" and become physical law? Or are you just trying to say that you're right no matter what?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that morals exist. What you're saying here is that you want to be relieved of this burden. You want me to just take your word for it. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. So far, the only proof you've offered of morals' existence is by labeling it a "Universal". I have no idea what this means, but the closest I can figure is that it means, "This concept is unquestionable. Please do not question it." Perhaps you could offer a more direct definition?

As to the Redness example, I do not agree that Redness exists. Light exists, and color is just the way we perceive it's various frequencies. In the same manner, morals are the way we perceive actions. Actions exist, morals do not.

Again, I think that morals are just rules we came up with to further our self-interest.