Hi, I've been reading alot about philosophy to write an argumentative essay on Absolutism vs. Relativism in favor or moral absolutism. Unfortunatly I have come to the point where I'm thinking too hard. Im not good enough in philosophy (very new to it!) to prove that absolute morals exist, I'm having some trouble. But in all the thinking I've done, I have came up with this dedective reasoning that I guess:uhh: (I really don't know if what I wrote is logical) is my belief of proving that absolute morals exist. (this is just one argument in my essay, I have others) Of course, not on my own! Plato and Aquinas pretty much wrote this for me, I just kind of combined some of their points into one. I'd just like to know what you guys think. Am I just a stupid kid who thinks he can prove something? or have I written something logical here. I wrote it in point form, I'll put it into wrinting once I feel it's worthy...: In Plato's Republic he says that a good city would be gouverened by "philosopher kings". He meant that the kings would gouvern the city in a just manner, with perfect moderation between selfishness and selflessness, that which is the fourth virtue, justice. Plato said, that one cannot possess justice without the other three virtues: "if the three where discovered...justice would be the fourth remaining". So his just philosopher kings would have to possess all four virtues. I want to prove that if these virtues exist and are atteinable, absolute morality exists. THE PHILOSOPHER KING: -He possesses the four cardial virtues: wisdom/prudence, temperance, courage and justice -Then he could gouvern a city in a just manner -Then he would know what is right or wrong, in any situation -Knowing what is right or wrong in any situation would imply that he would know what he ought to do, in a specific situation. Thus is a clear conscience. Like Aquinas said, prudence is the most important virtue because it is the innate knowledge of good and evil, right or wrong -Having prudence would imply having perfect rational thought -If he was to gouvern a city with the paragon of rational thought, then he would know what anyone ought to do, in any situation. He would know what would be good-doing, and what would be wrong-doing in a particular case -Knowing what would be good-doing or wrong-doing (what ought to be done) would imply knowing what is best, and what is just. -Knowing what is best in any situation, would mean knowing what is best for everyone (he could rationalize what is just in any situation, for any conflict, between any persons withing his city) -Knowing what is best for everyone, would indicate a purpose (if I know what is best for you, then I know what you ought to be doing, you have a purpose) NOTE: I said knowing what is best would indicate a purspose, not define it. Sort of like walking north to reach the horizon. You know your direction, but you'll never know whats there because you can never reach the horizon. Remember that knowing what is for the better or for the worse (ought do to, or not to do) is, as Aquinas said, an innate knowledge (given by god) that can only be known with prudence, temperace, courage and (as Plato said) the fourth virtue, justice, will follow, sustain and perfect the other three. -With these four virtues he would have the abilty to listen perfectly to his conscience -His conscience would tell him what he ought do in any situation. (he would not necessarily know why, because he only knows through intuition. He knows the direction but doesn't know the purpose. But the purpose exists. -Having a purpose of being, on this earth, would mean that their are actions which would be for the better of oneself and/or everyone, and actions that would be for the worst of oneself and/or everyone -These actions would indicate what is moral or immoral And if purposeexists, then their would be specific actions that are for the good of the purpose and for the bad of the purpose. These actions would indicate a system of morality which is absolute. The philosopher king knows morality best. Take into account that with the fouth virtue, justice, which is the perfect moderation of selfishness and selflessness, the philosopher king with a clear conscience (prudence) and justice, would be able to take into account any conflict, in any situation, between any persons, and justify what is moral and immoral in the right way, because he has the right amount of selflessness. As plato would say, justice is "minding one's own business". ------ Sorry if its redundant, what do you guys think? I will take no offence to constructive critisism. Thank you for taking the time to read this long post!