Originally posted by josephwThe problem is, meaning the error in thinking, is that the mind tends to wander when faced with the dilemma caused by contrary or contradicting ideas. More than one "objective standard" does just that. It's an illusion that causes the mind to wander from rational thought, which in turn causes subjective thinking about that which is objective.
It may be different in tone, but this is the same kind of waffle as Dasa came out with. He also insisted that his ideas about morality (and god and all the rest) were one absolute universally objective standard of morality and spiritual truth (or words to that effect). He also denounced those who disagreed with him as not being rational. So what? So what if people like you and Dasa say stuff like this on a message board?
Originally posted by FMFI did not ask you whether homosexuals behaving immorally is immoral. I asked you why you accept their totally unnatural behavior to be perfectly moral?
I have already told you what I think is the basis of morally unsound behaviour and therefore in what circumstances I think homosexuals and heterosexuals are engaging in morally unsound behaviour. But you simply ignored it.
Originally posted by josephwMmm, yeah, so you keep insisting. The fact that you need to keep insisting this (and projecting it on to everyone regardless of what their beliefs are) is an upshot of your "nurture".
One chooses to believe and adhere to a moral code not merely because of "nature and nurture" factors, but primarily because the standard of morality is objective and exists because it was given by our maker.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am not particularly interested in what your justification for thinking homosexuality is immoral is as I have had countless debates about it with all manner of people who agree with you, including many. many times here on this forum. Unlike you, I believe that all humans are moral beings who engage in morally sound behaviour until they don't. Everyone to me is innocent until proven guilty, so to speak. There is nothing wrong, to my way of thinking, with what a homosexual does until he or she does something that is morally unsound. And I have already explained to you what those morally unsound behaviours might be.
I did not ask you whether homosexuals behaving immorally is immoral. I asked you why you accept their totally unnatural behavior to be perfectly moral?
Originally posted by FMFIf the Bible clearly says that something is wrong, my personal preferences have no bearing on the legitimacy of its claims.
I tried to discuss this with you post after post, page after page, earlier on this thread. You either didn't read numerous posts of mine or you deliberately ignored them.
Originally posted by FMFYou clearly stated that you believe rape is always wrong and you said this based on the preference of your 'moral sensibilities'. You said anyone who disagrees with you on this is wrong. So why do you think your personal preference is correct and someone else's personal preference is wrong?
I have given you plenty of explanations and plenty of examples and plenty of answers and plenty of arguments and plenty of reasons, most of which you have simply ignored and refused to discuss. I am not typing any stuff out again when it is here on this very thread and you have, for the most part, chosen not to engage it. If you want an idea of how I have arrive ...[text shortened]... t encompasses, how I seek to apply it etc. etc. then I suggest you go back and read this thread.
Originally posted by FMFBut what makes your personal preference of what constitutes morally unsound behavior correct and someone else's personal preference who happens to disagree with you, wrong?
I am not particularly interested in what your justification for thinking homosexuality is immoral is as I have had countless debates about it with all manner of people who agree with you, including many. many times here on this forum. Unlike you, I believe that all humans are moral beings who engage in morally sound behaviour until they don't. Everyone to me is ...[text shortened]... lly unsound. And I have already explained to you what those morally unsound behaviours might be.
2 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have already told you what I believe are the sources of our moral sensibilities, how I believe they translate into morally sound and unsound behaviour, and how they govern what my attitudes to the moral sensibilities of others are. There was even plenty of discussion of rape specifically, on my part at least. But you just ignored what I said. It would seem you have missed the boat as far as discussing it with me as I am unwilling to go through it with you again. Maybe somebody else will indulge you.
You clearly stated that you believe rape is always wrong and you said this based on the preference of your 'moral sensibilities'. You said anyone who disagrees with you on this is wrong. So why do you think your personal preference is correct and someone else's personal preference is wrong?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am obviously guided in my decisions and interactions by my moral sensibilities. If people believe that my moral decisions are not correct or disagree with the moral soundness of my behaviour, then that is a matter for them. If they can demonstrate or explain to me how and why I was wrong, then that will form part of my moral education.
But what makes your personal preference of what constitutes morally unsound behavior correct and someone else's personal preference who happens to disagree with you, wrong?
Originally posted by FMFWhy? You've already provided all the reasons.
Explain exactly why someone who doesn't have the same views on morality as you is "an automaton".
By claiming that one's beliefs are a byproduct of conditioning you make yourself an automaton incapable of free choice, or for that matter even capable of free thought.
All your rationale is based upon the premise that an absolute standard of morality isn't objective, thereby rendering you an automaton subject to whatever environment you happen to be in, and incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong.
Originally posted by FMFI know what you claim to be your moral sensibilities. I am asking you how you know that these 'sources of your moral sensibilities' are correct? And why someone who subscribes to different ones are wrong? Or do you not believe that yours are right and someone else's are wrong? I have asked you this a few times yet you keep on pretending not to understand the question or just giving the same automated response that doesn't address the question I am asking.
I have already told you what I believe are the sources of our moral sensibilities, how I believe they translate into morally sound and unsound behaviour, and how they govern what my attitudes to the moral sensibilities of others. There was even plenty of discussion of rape specifically, on my part at least. But you just ignored what I said. It would seem you ha ...[text shortened]... with me as I am unwilling to go through it with you again. Maybe somebody else will indulge you.
Originally posted by josephwExplain this please. Are you really saying that someone who, acting as an individual, synthesizes their unique character and personality and human nature with their unique and almost infinitely complex upbringing and experience of interacting with their human environment ~ and, as a result engaging in behaviour about which they have made moral judgements and decisions as to what is right and wrong, for which they will be personally responsible for, ...is demonstrating that they are "...an automaton incapable of free choice, or for that matter even capable of free thought"?
By claiming that one's beliefs are a byproduct of conditioning you make yourself an automaton incapable of free choice, or for that matter even capable of free thought.
Explain it. I think it is sheer nonsense blather that you have blurted out without thinking. But if you can explain it in a way that makes it seem like it is a thesis worthy of respect, I will say so.