I was rambling and was not clear.

My post was an attempt to categorize, on a very gross level, views about right and wrong and what some of the implications of those views were. Obviously there are uncountable variations on each of these and there is some overlap. No after the fact taxonomy will be perfect.

(Also, I just realized that the "things" thread is different than the "right" thread, but somehow we got onto Kant and whenever I think Kant I think "right vs wrong". But anyways ....)

The views are:

1. ARAW (absolute right and wrong) exists. I think maybe Kant would go in this lot.

2. ARAW does not exist, but there may be a right and wrong that exist de facto if we take social sustainability as a primary value. Jeremy Bentham?

3. ARAW does not exist. All values are artificial or man-made. Nietzsche?


Again, I know the taxonomy is seriously flawed (incomplete map as well as overlapping taxa). Regardless of the taxonomy, however, there are a number of things that don't make sense to me in the details of what certain philosophers (and those who use their writings) expound as well as their reasoning.

Example: That many religious people are in set 1 is not surprising, but I know many atheists who are in group 1. I don't claim that the atheists I know is representative of the general lot, but still, I don't understand this.

Example: C. S. Lewis would clearly go in both groups (not as stated, but in the nebulous areas described by 'minor' variation). His Abolition of Man was like a chicken bone going down sideways, but there's still some merit in it. ARAW exists. Not only that, but we can actually know it - we *do* actually know it. It strikes me as a very humanistic view in that everyone and every belief has access to this spring of moral knowledge.

Ah, boogers. I've taken to rambling again. It's difficult to speak or write clearly on a subject that suffuses me with confusion.

k