DY: We should do what’s right because that’s inherently good.
We would do what’s right because we feel that we should, and feel good doing what’s right. This type of benefit, though is not the ??? referred to in ??? ?? ??? ???? ???.
PAA: You haven’t explained why you should do something because it’s inherently good.
PAA – This more or less boils down to my confusion in your position. Shouldn’t you be using DY’s second point to prove your point? That the only reason why a person would do what’s right is for ones personal benefit. NOT because ???? ???? ???. If you accept that one should, does that answer your original problem?
PAA – I am not sure at which point you are arguing with me. Accepting my premise that there is such a thing as an innate sense of moral Right/Wrong (which is hardwired into our thinking as part of our psyche – the ultimate knowledge and perception of Right/Wrong), would one not be accountable by logical progression for performing an action that is morally categorized as Wrong?
Better yet, tell me what you would say if you where the judge in my story above. How would you answer my murderer?