[MD] Is Quality Different from (Mother) Nature?

[Ham Priday]

Hey, John --


> But I can choose to walk or run or fly, so I have choice in the
> face of the force of gravity and I can steal candy from babies
> or invade Poland (with some help) so I have choice in the face
> of the force of morality, which was the main thrust of my point.
> Just because there is a force doesn't mean I have to go with it.
>
> Just because my compass points north, doesn't mean my legs
> can't walk south.

You seem to be positing an argument where none exists.  I'm in total 
agreement with both of the posts you've addressed to me.

Apparently, you misinterpreted or have lost sight of the point I was making 
to Joe Maurer, which is that man invents morality rather than the other way 
around.  The individual IS FREE because he is not bound by a universe that 
is intrinsically moral.  If morality were universal, human beings would 
necessarily behave according to the laws of nature and genetic programming. 
The exercise of free choice is made possible by man's value sensibility and 
reasoning.  That he is uniquely endowed with these faculties suggests that 
man's role in existence is that of choice-maker.  Among his choices are ways 
to establish a moral society.

So, what is your argument?

--Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
_ _ _ _ _

>> On Monday, 11/30/09, 10:21 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Ham sez:
>>>
>>> "If morality were intrinsic to the universe, as you seem to believe,
>>> you would have no choice but to 'go with the flow'."
>>>
>>> That's like saying if gravity were intrinsic to the universe I wouldn't
>>> have
>>> any choice but to fall down.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> --Ham