Originally posted by @fmfOf what use is a compass really if it is not aligned to true North and everyone has to guess the direction which is continually changing as the wind blows?
A moral "compass" doesn't. A moral "compass" is a personal an unique thing every moral agent has. It helps them navigate a human landscape filled wih moral choices and dilemmas.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou're dodging.
I simply asked you a question you made your own conclusions.
1 edit
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYour compass vis a vis your sister? Just as subjective as mine. And one cannot get much more seeious than protecting people from getting raped. You simply choked on the dilemma it would seem.
Of what use is a compass really if it is not aligned to true North and everyone has to guess the direction which is continually changing as the wind blows?
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmfYour word salad makes no sense, try again.
You're compass vis a vis your sister? Just as subjective as mine. And one cannot get much more seeious than protecting people from getting raped. You simply choked on the dilemma it would seem.
Would you say not protecting people from getting raped is always wrong? How would that be consistent within a context of moral relativity?
4 edits
Originally posted by @fmfSerious?
Typo fixed.
If my moral compass in relation to my sister is just as relative as yours why would it always be wrong not to protect people from getting raped? Your moral relativity is getting you into all kinds of knots. It either is always wrong in which case moral absolutes do exist (and you are wrong about moral relativism) or it isn't always wrong and your argument is moot.
1 edit
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou're rehashing stuff. You know my answers to your assertions. And yet we have a real case before us. Am I wrong about there being a moral obligation to do what it takes to protect others from the same fate as your relative? If you disagree with my stance, in what way is your stance based on your so-called "moral absolutes"? I have made my case. What's yours?
If my moral compass in relation to my sister is just as relative as yours why would it always be wrong not to protect people from getting raped? Your moral relativity is getting you into all kinds of knots. It either is always wrong in which case moral absolutes do exist (and you are wrong about moral relativism) or it isn't always wrong and your argument is moot.
Originally posted by @fmfIf moral absolutes do exist you are either right or wrong about it. If moral absolutes don't exist who cares?
You're rehasing stuff. You know my answers to your assertions. And yet we have a real case before us. Am I wrong about there being a moral obligation to do what it takes to protect others from the same fate as your relative? If you disagree with my stance, in what way is your stance based on your so-called "moral absolutes"? I have made my case. What's yours?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIn what way is your stance on not protecting other people from being raped out of loyalty to your sister based on the application of your much vaunted "moral absolutes"?
If moral absolutes do exist you are either right or wrong about it. If moral absolutes don't exist who cares?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAm I wrong on this matter according to you? How do you think your stance on this "matters"? And to whom?
If moral absolutes do exist you are either right or wrong about it. If moral absolutes don't exist who cares?
Originally posted by @fmfHow can anyone's stance be right or wrong within the context of moral relativism?
In what way is your stance on not protecting other people from being raped out of loyalty to your sister based on the application of your much vaunted "moral absolutes"?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDid I miss your apology to Dive? (Or have you conveniently forgotten your previous misuse of personal information? )
If you have it in you to apologize for your previous (possibly drunken) outburst, I might consider talking to you again.