Originally posted by @dj2becker
Your moral compass isn’t worth much if you’re not even sure that rape and abuse is always wrong.

I have my misgivings about you having to refer to some supernatural being to stop you doing such things but it's better than nothing.

Originally posted by @fmf
I have my misgivings about you having to refer to some supernatural being to stop you doing such things but it's better than nothing.

I have my misgivings about an individual that doesn't have: (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority by which proper moral obligation can be defended. Without these 2 things, morals/ethics simply becomes emotionally based personal preferences.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I have my misgivings about an individual that doesn't have: (1) an unchanging standard he can turn to, and (2) an absolute authority by which proper moral obligation can be defended. Without these 2 things, morals/ethics simply becomes emotionally based personal preferences.

Well then, we both have misgivings. The whole thing exists, for both of us, to my way of thinking, in the realm of subjectivity, preference and choice. You believe your compass is more "proper" than mine. I can live with that.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well then, we both have misgivings. The whole thing exists, for both of us, to my way of thinking, in the realm of subjectivity, preference and choice. You believe your compass is more "proper" than mine. I can live with that.

Assuming subjective morality is a self defeating position to have when making moral judgements as you well know.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Assuming subjective morality is a self defeating position to have when making moral judgements as you well know.

Subjective morality is all each of us has. Our certainty or sincerity do not render our moral compasses objective.

You claiming your morality is based on "power" or "authority" or that it's rooted in "absolute truth" or that your personal opinions about moral matters are "objective", as if by making these assertions you can somehow alter the substance and nature of the human condition, are all merely the trappings of your subjectivity.

To seek to dismiss disagreement as "self-defeating" is about as subjective as one can get.

To seek to liken your personal perspectives to mathematical formulas, or some such, does not disguise the fact that those personal perspectives are profoundly subjective, as are mine and everybody's.

Originally posted by @fmf
Subjective morality is all each of us has. Our certainty or sincerity do not render our moral compasses objective.

You claiming your morality is based on "power" or "authority" or that it's rooted in "absolute truth" or that your personal opinions about moral matters are "objective", as if by making these assertions you can somehow alter the substance and n ...[text shortened]... he fact that those personal perspectives are profoundly subjective, as are mine and everybody's.

This is your dilemma:

If you believe absolute truth does exist, why can't absolute moral truths exist?

If you don't believe absolute truths exist, how do you know that it is absolutely true that moral absolutes don't exist?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
This is your dilemma:

If you believe absolute truth does exist, why can't absolute moral truths exist?

If you don't believe absolute truths exist, how do you know that it is absolutely true that moral absolutes don't exist?

It's all subjective.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's all subjective.

That’s gotta be the laziest rejoinder I’ve ever seen.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Left two days in a hot and wet environment, all of FMFs posts become moldy as they are too lazy to move.

I think my posts are cogent, clear-sighted and consistent.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's all subjective.

I guess you aren't absolutely sure about that. 😆

Is it absolutely true just because you say so?

Originally posted by @fmf
I think my posts are cogent, clear-sighted and consistent.

At best you can be relatively sure about that.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Gay sex no longer criminal offence in India.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45429664

That is a lot of people celebrating!

More change in India:

"India strikes down sexist adultery law: 'Husband is not the master of the wife'

New Delhi (CNN) - India's top court has abolished a colonial-era law criminalizing extramarital sex, in a landmark ruling campaigners have hailed as a victory for women's rights.

Under the 158-year-old adultery law, known as section 479, a man could be imprisoned for up to five years for engaging in sexual relations with a married woman without the consent of her husband.

The Supreme Court struck down the law Thursday, ruling it retrograde and discriminatory towards women.

"It's time to say that (a) husband is not the master of (his) wife," Chief Justice Dipak Misra, read out from the judgment. "Legal sovereignty of one sex over the other sex is wrong."

The five-judge bench was unanimous in its decision, declaring the law a clear violation of the fundamental rights granted in the constitution.

The law allowed a husband to prosecute any man who engaged in sexual relations with his wife. In addition, it prevented a wife from prosecuting either her husband or woman in which he was engaged in extramarital relations.

"You exact fidelity from a woman but not from a man?" asked Justice D. Y. Chandrachud during the four-day long hearing.

The petition was brought by Kerala native Joseph Shine, who had urged the top court to re-examine the validity of section 497 owing to its implied gender bias.

"It is a big victory for women's status and position within marriage and within families" said Jayna Kothari, an attorney and the executive director of the Center for Law and Policy Research in Bangalore.

"The adultery offense was used really as a threat against women by their husbands," she said, adding that it was mainly used where marriages had already broken down and partners moved on.

Data showing the number of men prosecuted under Section 479 is not available.

'Sanctity of marriage'

The controversial law had long been championed by family rights campaigners, who argued that it was necessary to preserve social stability.

The Indian government, a coalition led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, had supported adultery remaining a criminal offense, suggesting that rather than scrapping the law, it was amended to be gender neutral, with equal punishment for both men and women.

However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed concerns that the abolition of the law would result in higher rates of infidelity.

"Each partner to a marriage is equally responsible to keep the sanctity of marriage intact," said the ruling.

"Section 497 destroys and deprives women of dignity and is destructive of women's dignity, self-respect as it treats women as chattel."

In a statement posted to social media, opposition Congress Party MP and president of the Party's Women's Wing, Sushmita Dev, described the ruling as an "excellent decision."

"A law that does not give women the right to sue her adulterer husband and can't be herself sued if she commits adultery is unequal treatment and militates against her status as an individual separate entity."

It is the second ruling favoring sexual liberation in India this month following the repeal of Section 377, a colonial-era law criminalizing consensual gay sex.

The law penalized intercourse "against the order of nature" and had carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The decision to repeal the law was seen as a major victory for India's LGBT activists and supporters after years of determined struggle". ~ CNN