Right and Wrong (closure?)

"This argument assumes some independent standard of 'legitimate' by which things can be judged. But, there is just us. I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide. What else can I do? I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be "wrong" by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right.

All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs."

First, when I question whether genocide is legitimate, what I really mean to do is question whether genocide is right. The fact that you put 'legitimate' in scare quotes illustrates how problematic this issue can be for someone who doesn't accept objective morality. (If you can think of a more accurate term, I will be happy to consider it, but I think it does convey the sense of what we're talking about here).

You wrote: "I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide."

Now, I don't have any real issues with what you're describing here. For someone who tries to apply what they believe about morality, this is a pretty good description. However, I can't seem to reconcile it with your basic, overall idea that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.

If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"

On what basis would one conclude that those like Oskar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom, who protected Jews, did the "right" thing if there are no objective standards?

One final observation:

"I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be 'wrong' by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right."

Your point is well taken. I'm not saying one necessarily gains anything or could win a debate by appealing to Natural Law. Yes, Hitler would absolutely argue the point of genocide. You are right in saying some people "will say they know what the standard is, and they are right."

But we both know people are dishonest. I can't prove it, Steve, but I firmly believe Hitler knew genocide was wrong. And why do I believe it?

Natural Law.

If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.

Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things. I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.