counter argument part3
counterargument as to what morality is
morality is a form and transcendent force
qualitatively morality is what ought
as in morality is the quality of how things should be
as to what that is, ultimately all things should be good
thus morality is the form and force of what ought
thus morality and what is moral is that which is good and that leads to what is good
what is good is something that is imbued with the essence of Good
it does so by holding the qualities that are consistent with the essence of the Good
Good is an ententia (a transcendent essence form)
The nature of the essence of Good can most closely be described as substantive purity
counterarguement part2
this perfect answer can be known
the reason
the person is a fundamentally intellectual being who is capable of moral and intellectual perfection and full understanding and agency
the imperfections in mankind and its thinking comes from being underdeveloped beings
when we have finished developing we will be perfect, and this course of overall perfection will include the development of intellectual perfection and moral perfection
counter argument in favor of moral truth
Morality is a transcendent entity and phenomenon that exist beyond the mere humans that involve themselves with it
this phenomenon has qualities
it needs to have these qualities to make it a phenomenon and as it is
there are things and people which attain the state of being moral or immoral
these things have qualities that relate to their moral status
it is having such qualities in regards to morality that allow them to have their moral quality
that is to say that morality is an existing force which has qualities that make up its nature
since morality has a nature and reality exists as a rational system, the nature of morality has a rational order
since it is an existing entity and quality, it has it own rationally ordered nature of qualities and being that make it what it is
since its nature is made up of qualities and is rationally ordered it can be explained
thus an answer that fully explains this would be a perfect answer
critique part 3
Furthermore there is a confusion between two points, the claim that thee isn't a perfect understanding of morality and the claim that we cannot have perfect understanding of morality. There could be a means of perfectly describing morality, but human beings may not be able to know it. So the interlink within his argument fails.
next, the claim that a perfect moral explanation would render other explanations worthless is not correct. There ideas can be valuable by the degree to which they are similar to the correct understanding.
Furthermore he asserts that the value of inquiry is to find better ideas. But in order for something to become better or worse, it must have a shift of qualities in regards to an end standard. Thus in order for ideas to get better their must be an ideal.
critique part2
critique of the conclusion
the claim of a lack of a perfect answer for morality is justified by claiming it to be like happiness. But justification is not given to verify this claim. One what basis can equivalence be made between and emotion and something that can be well argued as possessing its own existence, and at the very least is a phenomena beyond the mere temperaments of man. he claims that man cannot be perfect and thus his knowledge cannot be perfect. But he does not justify this claim. The imperfections of man and the thoughts, even if they are a condition, are not by necessity an aspect of man. Man could very well be perfectible, and in which case a man could become perfect and attain perfect knowledge of morality.
critique
the claimed criteria are rational consistency and consistency with reality. Yet the method of inquiry is mainly placed toward finding internal inconsistencies. Actual challenges to the realistic validity of claims or to rational standards of logical claims rarely occur and usually as a reaction. The ability to place challenges to ideas does not give any actual range to being able to challenge ideas. The entire line of system is et to one unvarying answer justified through a predesigned montage used to move people on a fictional narrative to conclusion little more critically justified than the morals of a children's cartoon. While this may make sense for a game, it is not good philosophy
 "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher"){kind=icon}