Below-copied essay by ap first published at comments, https://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/20...l#comment-form
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Christian Worships TRUTH (= Christ) In Accord W. Holy Spirit (Reason, Honesty, Integrity)
(Apollonian, 29 Nov 16)
(Apollonian, 29 Nov 16)
U say, above:
"To put it slightly differently, just as knowing that truth *exists* is one thing, but finding out what propositions are true is something else, so too, knowing that good exists is not the same thing as being correct about what things are good."
TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) exists given the ASSUMPTION (as all logic is necessarily founded) of objective (Aristotelian) reality. Particulars are then mere subsets, including non-existent, particular (even if abstract) "good-evil."
Subjectivism, never forget, is just another (the alternative) assumption which one can choose, but question is what practical good does it do? For subjectivism only fails by reduction-ad-absurdum, that's all, and that's why objectivity is more useful, practical choice.
Subjectivism is necessary premise to satanism and "good," "good" mere instrument of satanism--it's reason, for another example, Alex Jones (InfoWars.com) is heavily promoted by Jews, satanists, including hitlery Clinton, Jones notorious pusher of such "good-evil" fallacy/heresy (Pelagianism).
And all u do for "good" is, like typical Platonist, begging question repetitively, obsessively, continuously--as if to thus make such begging-question seemingly legitimate. Good is necessarily a particular, if it exists, which must be demonstrated and properly defined (regardless what u say about "definition") which we see u're incapable of doing.
Thus we see u continue to wiggle and squirm, begging the question, and special-pleading etc., for ur obsession for "good" (and hence "evil"), almost as if u want to reify this non-existent "good" by means of repetitively asserting it exists, even as u practically admit it can't be defined (and despite cavilling over meaning/use of the word, "definition").
So if "good" exists, given it's wide usage, it deserves a fairly simple, practical definition, "good" being mere PARTICULAR, though perhaps abstract, which neither u nor anyone else can do, period; admit the truth like proper Christian.
----------------above by ap in response to below-copied----------------------
Liberty Bell November 29, 2016 at 12:59 PM
Remember that there is a difference between metaphysics (the study of being or existence) and epistemology (the study of how we know). We should not confuse the two. A thing's metaphysical status is one thing; it's epistemic status is another.
The good and the true are an analogous positions, both with respect to metaphysics and epistemology. To put it slightly differently, just as knowing that truth *exists* is one thing, but finding out what propositions are true is something else, so too, knowing that good exists is not the same thing as being correct about what things are good.
I deny that any of the examples of moral confusion that you gesture towards - self-hatred, slavery, prohibition, seat-belt laws, fiat-money creation, and so on - are clearcut reasons to deny the existence of goodness. They give no better reason to deny the existence of goodness than they do to deny the existence of truth. After all, someone could say that the confusions that you highlight are primarily confusions over truth and over derivatively confusions over goodness.
But, presumably, you would want to say that racial self-hatred is not good and that it is true that one should not have racial self-hatred. And so on for each example.
For sure, your examples show that it is often difficult to come to know what propositions are true and what acts are good. And it is often contentious to advocate in favor of particular propositions or of particular acts. However, again, to draw metaphysical confusions from this epistemic quagmire just conflates metaphysics with epistemology.