-Removed-FMF has rejected any objective moral standard. His moral standards are thus based upon his own subjective opinions or personal preferences. If there is no objective standard for right and wrong, what makes his opinion any more valid than anyone else's opinion? If he tried to say that anyone else's morals were wrong, then isn't he being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on his subjective opinions?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have spent pages and pages of this thread ignoring and refusing to address any observations or questions about how your chosen terminology - "subjective opinions or personal preferences" - applies to you.
His moral standards are thus based upon his own subjective opinions or personal preferences.
It's as if you desperately want to brandish the words "subjective opinions or personal preferences" but you are adamant, at all costs, that how they pertain to you are not discussed ~ or, indeed, you seem adamant that you will not even acknowledge that observations or questions [about how the terminology pertains to you] have been posed.
You've just blanked it out. And asked the same already answered questions over and over and over and over again instead.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI would say the grotesque nature of the moral atrocity of rape makes my condemnation of it valid and anyone's attempted justification of it invalid.
If there is no objective standard for right and wrong, what makes his opinion [about rape] any more valid than anyone else's opinion?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf someone who thinks rape is morally justifiable thinks I am "arrogant" for condemning rape ~ and for doing so without using words like"universal", "absolute", or "objective", or without referencing a supernatural being ~ then he and I would disagree, that's all. Rape would still be wrong.
If he tried to say that anyone else's morals were wrong, then isn't he being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on his subjective opinions?
How is it you think that someone who thinks rape is morally justifiable would win the argument? If he claimed it was "objectively true" to say that rape is justifiable, would that win the argument for him?
And why do you think I would be concerned about being thought [by such a person] to be "arrogant" for this disagreement about rape?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk to divegeesterYou are surely able to imagine that divegeester doesn't actually believe that Muslims and Hindus and Jews, for example, think that his Christian views are "universally true", right? He may contend that his belief in Christ is "true" but do you really think he believes that this "truth" he perceives about Christ is "universally true" in so far as people who believe other things to be "true" agree that his views are "true"?
I take it then you do not take your own Christian views to be universally true?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat effect on the religious beliefs of Muslims and Hindus and Jews (and reality generally) do you think divegeester declaring his religious views to "universally true" would have?
I take it then you do not take your own Christian views to be universally true?
What actual or practical effect do you think you declaring your own personal views to be "universally true" has on discourse between you and people with differing views?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMF1. A universal moral law exists that transcends our opinions and is objectively true regardless of anyone's particular beliefs.
You have spent pages and pages of this thread ignoring and refusing to address any observations or questions about how your chosen terminology - "subjective opinions or personal preferences" - applies to you.
It's as if you desperately want to brandish the words "subjective opinions or personal preferences" but you are adamant, at all costs, that how they p ...[text shortened]... ut. And asked the same already answered questions over and over and over and over again instead.
2. A universal moral law does not exist and hence morality is totally subjective and no one's view is any more or less correct than anyone else's view.
The way I see it those are the 2 options.You either believe the one or the other.
Originally posted by FMFRape would still be wrong.
If someone who thinks rape is morally justifiable thinks I am "arrogant" for condemning rape ~ and for doing so without using words like"universal", "absolute", or "objective", or without referencing a supernatural being ~ then he and I would disagree, that's all. Rape would still be wrong.
How is it you think that someone who thinks rape is morally justifia ...[text shortened]... cerned about being thought [by such a person] to be "arrogant" for this disagreement about rape?
Only if you agree to option 1 being true.