I agree - I think we are probably not in disagreement here, except on the derivation of where that readout is from (I think you’re not a believer and I am?) I personally think we have souls mad that good and evil are not only actions but things in and of themselves. I suspect you may take a more reductionist view, but the outcome will be largely the same: testing of an idea against a moral core (however you feel this is derived) and living accordingly
Yes I agree - I think there is something beyond reason driving that, and I don’t think someone who derives it from reason is wrong. I just think there’s something else going on. Perhaps i think reason is itself a Readout of the soul,
Well I disagree with reason being the base layer, but I’m not terribly sure it matters much as long as the outcome is the same.
Or maybe it does. It matters to me - let me give an example. Kier starmer. He’s a man who thinks ‘right’ flows from the law. If rhe law changed tomorrow to say he had to throttle every kitten in reach he would and he’d have no compunction in doing so. Now you will argue that he isn’t reasoning - and you’d be right. But that’s sort of how I see reason being the last layer. It can be hijacked. Perhaps feelings can be too, and I think that truly moral people are coming from the same point; they examine the externality against an internal benchmark. They just name it different things
True, I'm not a believer, but I'm sure I get where you're coming from
The idea of a soul is compelling. The notion that there is some deeper metaphysical core from which right and wrong radiate.
But allow me to identify a problem here. If that "moral core" exists, how would you access it
except by reasoning about what you feel, what you observe, and what you conclude?
Even if it were indisputably true that you and I had souls, you'd still need reasons to interpret the soul's signals. And if its signals were to contradict with reason (like if your soul told you to strangle kittens or obey evil laws) then you'd rightly treat that as suspect, at least I hope so. Which means that reason
still sits above it as final judge.
The idea that "reason is just a readout of the soul" is poetic, but ultimately empty, for the simple reason that either the readout aligns with reality or it doesn't. If it does, there is no need for mysticism to validate it. And if it doesn't, then mysticism won't save it.
To me, that is the crucial distinction. What you call your "internal benchmark" is less important than
how you validate it. And the only method that doesn't collapse into subjectivism or obedience is.......... reason.
