@Adam101,
Adam101;94629 wrote:What if knowledge doesn't make you happy...isn't that oppressive to tell people that they have to be knowledgeable or in the pursuit of knowledge in order to be acting morally correct?
I think you may have misunderstood him, Adam. When he speaks of a rationally-irrefutable basis, or a one ultimate standard, I believe he means: the primitive assumption upon which the rest of his model, his theory, stands. Every theory, or axiomatic system, needs some primitive assumptions, some undefined terms, some axioms or postulates which are not to be challenged except on grounds of reasonableness, or esthetics.
He is saying: Are you in favor of knowledge? If so, then everything else I'm going to say follows from that. And you have no reason not to accept it, once you said "Yes," in answer to that original question. He is here in an attempt to persuade philosophers and philosophy students as to its soundness -- not yet the general public. For the latter it will have to be sold the way you speak to children - perhaps in terms of rewards and punishments; perhaps codified into statute laws, to serve as sanctions for violation of its findings. Ideally the law is supposed to help put ethics into action. But that assumes that the Justice System has been permeated by awareness of good ethiical concepts and theories. This has largely not yet occurred.