Philip Pilkington wrote:
>
> > Well, while I agree, that still seems to leave it fairly undefined. It seems
> to me to be a fairly abstract term which agrees, throughout the ages, with a
> certain "something" which isn't properly talked about or defined. I still
> see the spectre of the "ideal ego <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_ideal>"
> here... And since Freud we should surely see this as the necessary illusion
> that it is.
The question is: On what metaphysical foundation can one claim the existenced of trnahistorical norms constraining human activty?
No one except Ted has made the slightest effort to answer this question. (I don't accept Ted's arguments, but they _are_ arguments; Doug, et al have offered no arguments but either oersibak attacks on those raising the question or wails that what will we do if you take ourmorals away from us.
Put another way, Where do Ethics come from? Have they an existence prior to and independently of particular human activities? Those professing a theistic religion of course _also_ have a coherent argument, though one I do not accept.
Carrol