Search results

Again, not sure what you mean by "non-axiomatic." If anything, I could argue your utilitarian moral system is axiomatic by assuming your central tenant. So you don't have a definition for happiness? Word to the wise: I understand wanting to ramble on about your personal views, and what you do...

Rather, moral principles ought to be the basis of the state's laws.

@Train Dodger I'm confused. You said that you don't believe moral statements have any cognitive content, yet you say that certain things are "better" or "worse." On what grounds could something be "better" or "worse" in a moral anti-realist framework? @Morphic Tide If you think the best basis...

Morality is not legality because the positive law is created by the state while the natural law was created by God. Positive law also differs from place to place and era to era according to political circumstances while the natural law is based on human nature and will last so long as humans...

This is actually not true. The is/ought gap is an innovation of modern philosophy. As I laid out, you can get an ought from an is because the oughts are baked into the is.

The natural law is based on this foundation: that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided." The will has as its telos what appears to be good to the intellect, and the intellect has as its telos what is true, so the rational mind (which is intellect + will) has as its telos what is...