Perspectives

Your last post brought up an interesting point -- the perspective from which one views the words used makes a difference:

• Perspective from point of view of speaker -- then this is indeed a variant of the "Golden Rule" -- treat others as you would like to be treated.
  
• Perspective from point of view of observer -- then we fall headlong into the question of standards; that is, reference by which we measure the relative merit of the words one uses

The question -- and we've wrestled with this for a long time -- is whether or not there is an objective outside standard that can serve as a measuring stick for judging the words and actions of others. There seems to be something out there -- there are certain things everyone seems to agree upon. For instance, it's not a good thing to club a helpless infant to death. But it seems even that might come under scrutiny and debate in some circles. For example, the question of an infant born helplessly deformed with little chance of living. Clubbing it might still be agreed to as inhumane, but there seems a growing consensus to, at the very least , allow it to die with no medical intervention.

Increasingly I'm coming to the conclusion that arguing the question of objective truth is nearly hopeless, since so many people have jettisoned the idea that there can be any objective truth. So the debate has fundamentally shifted:

1. From: "What is the nature of objective truth?"
2. To: "Is there objective truth?"

If one is arguing from the position of #2, then there is absolutely no anchor point. So further discussion is pointless.

And that might very well be the downfall of human civilization.

With that I shift gears. If the devil is "prince" of this earthly realm, and his goal is the cast humanity into chaos and destruction, what could possibly be his gain? Let's say all the humans kill themselves off. Would that please or dismay the devil? Would he have accomplished his goal, or eliminated the source of his "power" such as it was?