Right and Wrong, my (perhaps) final statement

As far as I can tell, we're in general agreement about the process most people go through to arrive at ideas about what's wrong and right and morality in general. Our fundamental disagreement lies in how we view the nature of our conclusions and the implications those conclusions have.

Here's what I mean.

To the Christian -- at least to this Christian -- Natural Law embodies universal truths about how men are to live. By extrapolation, it reveals principles that are as real as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. And they are every bit as binding on the human race as gravity itself.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let us go back to the question of genocide. I have asked whether genocide is morally right or morally wrong.

You stated that you "feel" genocide is, in some sense, "wrong," perhaps even "evil," and the very thought of it makes you hurt. Moreover, you have discussed it with others who confirmed your view: "And so [you] act on that, and condemn genocide."

Your condemnation, however, comes with a proviso that gives away the farm: being subject to "illusions" as we are, humans cannot be too careful about making absolute pronouncements about genocide, because at the end of the day, regardless of how palpably miserable one may feel about genocide -- or any other moral question -- it's really just an opinion.

I would submit to you that there are many questions of morality that are not subject to the vagaries of public opinion nor are they a product of it.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?

I'm not saying feelings can never lead you to the wrong conclusion. But neither should we assume that a conclusion is wrong just because, in the process of reaching it, we had a corresponding feeling.

Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:

Life is sacred.

Of course, many of the laws man has invented from time immemorial, injunctions against murder, for example, are derived from this basic principle. Now, that is NOT to say that this principle exists in isolation to other principles or that there aren't ever competing principles involved when considering it. But it is a basic, fundamental principle I hold to be true.

Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.

It was upon this fundamental principle that Jesus could say: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (And yes, I'm aware that others down through the ages have articulated this same basic idea).

You mentioned the charitable contributions you had made to organizations who oppose human rights violation and torture. Were it possible for you to objectively assess your motivation, do you think it would be because A) these groups agree with your opinion that torture is probably one of the least preferable ways to deal with people, but that we cannot be sure, since we don't all agree nor can we appeal to some universal written code, or B) these groups believe torture, in some very real, fundamental way, is wrong?

I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.

To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.

Maybe that's a corny example. Hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm saying.