Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You asked me whether I could tell and I said yes. Why are you now twisting my words?

I'm not twisting anything. I asked you if you think that my moral code is no better than Hitler's and your answer was yes.

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't think so. No. I have spent long months rejecting the idea that you propagate which is that your morals are superior and more coherent on account of your superstitious notions. I have not been arguing that my morals are better than yours - indeed, I think they are mostly identical, aside from the fact that you have shown some indication that your moral c ...[text shortened]... ieve that you go around damaging, deceiving or coercing other people any more or less than I do.

Do you believe that the morals that you and I agree upon are objectively better than Hitlers morals?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Hitler obeyed the moral standards enshrined in his. What is your objection to that if there is no objective moral law by which you can demonstrate that his morals were wrong?

My objection to Hitler's behaviour is based on my moral code.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you believe that the morals that you and I agree upon are objectively better than Hitlers morals?

Your morality and my morality are both subjective. Even if they happen to coincide, they do not somehow become "objective". Good grief. It's as if you have been ignoring the content of hundreds of my posts.

Originally posted by @fmf
I'm not twisting anything. I asked you if you think that my moral code is no better than Hitler's and your answer was yes.

I misread your question, I initially thought you asked whether I thought they were better than Hitlers. So my answer to your original questions is actually no. My apologies.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you don't believe anyone should follow your morals and everyone is free to do as they please, why couldn't Hitler be free to do as he pleases?

Will you please quote me where I said that "everyone is free to do as they please"? It's such an egregious misrepresentation of the thousands of words I have written about morality, I must, therefore, assume you are trolling. Is there a post where I said that which you can quote.

Originally posted by @fmf
My objection to Hitler's behaviour is based on my moral code.

If you do not view your moral code to be objective, anyone is free to disagree with you even Hitler and you could not say that your moral code is objectively better than his.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I misread your question, I initially thought you asked whether I thought they were better than Hitlers. So my answer to your original questions is actually no. My apologies.

Your moral prism also precludes you from seeing anger at a sibling and murdering 6 million people as being anything other than equally "evil". I believe my ability to discern between the morality of those two actions makes my moral prism more coherent than yours in that matter.

Originally posted by @fmf
Will you please quote me where I said that "everyone is free to do as they please"? It's such an egregious misrepresentation of the thousands of words I have written about morality, I must, therefore, assume you are trolling. Is there a post where I said that which you can quote.

You said everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If everyone is entitled to their own opinions and morality (being subjective) is only based upon opinions, (with no opinion being any more valid than another) why would anyone not be free to do as they please if there were no objective standard by which to tell which opinions were correct and which weren't?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you do not view your moral code to be objective, anyone is free to disagree with you even Hitler and you could not say that your moral code is objectively better than his.

Morality governs actions. A paedophile is free to think what he wants and free to disagree with me over the morality of what he does. But he is not free to rape children, and if the laws of a land permit him to do so, then I would reject the morality of such laws.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your moral prism also precludes you from seeing anger at a sibling and murdering 6 million people as being anything other than equally "evil". I believe my ability to discern between the morality of those two actions makes my moral prism more coherent than yours in that matter.

I already corrected you and said I believe they are both sinful which is not the same as 'equally evil'. The sin of murdering millions is obviously worse than betting angry with your sibling.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
...why would anyone not be free to do as they please if there were no objective standard by which to tell which opinions were correct and which weren't?

Because of laws which pertain to moral matters and actions and behaviours attendant thereto.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I already corrected you and said I believe they are both sinful which is not the same as 'equally evil'. The sin of murdering millions is obviously worse than betting angry with your sibling.

You stood by that "equally evil" assertion for months. Have you changed your mind?

Originally posted by @fmf
Morality governs actions. A paedophile is free to think what he wants and free to disagree with me over the morality of what he does. But he is not free to rape children, and if the laws of a land permit him to do so, then I would reject the morality of such laws.

So therefore you do believe that rape is always wrong regardless of whether a countries laws permit it or not. Which means you do believe in an least one moral absolute even if you won't admit it.

Originally posted by @fmf
You stood by that "equally evil" assertion for months. Have you changed your mind?

I have corrected you multiple times on the issue. I believe getting angry with your brother is sin. As is mass murder. That is all.