An a priori assumption is not necessarily an instance of absolute or universal truth.. The issue of the killing of an innocent person is not necessarily a religious value, a God given value. If you believe that it is, you need to show why.
An a priori assumption must be absolute within the scope in which it is applied. By definition it is beyond debate.
Not that simple, the definition of an a priori assumption being that something is true without further proof or need to prove it, which does not mean absolute certainty.
''However, it has a negative side: an a priori assumption made without question on the basis that no analysis or study is necessary, can be mental laziness when the reality is not so certain.''
''A priori justification seems to rest on rational intuitions, or insights, but there are a variety of views about the nature of these intuitions or insights. There are different explanations of how these intuitions provide justification, if they do. Some philosophers do not see a priori justification as resting on any evidence, either experiential or nonexperiential, and so not resting on rational intuitions or insights at all. Their idea is that in some circumstances it can be default reasonable for a person to accept a proposition, or that the person is entitled to accept certain presuppositions independent of any evidence. Of course, there are also many objections to the idea that there can be a priori justification. Finally, rationalists think that there can be a priori justification and knowledge of the world while empiricists deny this.''
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Didn't say it was a religious value, depends on one's concept of religion I suppose. You asked for an example and that's a very common example. Choose that assumption or don't.
I was responding to the claim of an apparent necessity for absolute values - ''It's a long discussion but in a nutshell without some universal truths you're left with moral relativism'' - nighthawk.
