Questions on morality

Originally posted by FMF
It was about as outrageous an attempt to downplay the Holocaust as I have ever comer across. I have pressed you on the matter for months and months and you have stood by it. Right this minute you seem to find it inconvenient that you said it. Your retraction is meaningless to me. Others may be impressed by it.

My intention has never been to downplay the Holocaust. Besides from your perspective, since you believe that society has the right to impose its morals on its people, how can you legitimately complain against Nazi Germany or the Jews of the Old Testament since both societies were imposing their morals on people?

Originally posted by FMF
Sounds to me like your convoluted superstitions have left you spiritually and morally handicapped.

Since you believe your morals are a product of your nature and nurture and my morals are a product of my nature and nurture, you can't legitimately claim that yours are any better than mine. At least not from your perspective.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Since you believe your morals are a product of your nature and nurture and my morals are a product of my nature and nurture, you can't legitimately claim that yours are any better than mine. At least not from your perspective.

"Legitimately" according to whom? Me? From my perspective? Of course I can.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
My intention has never been to downplay the Holocaust.

And yet you did. Your "intention" is neither here nor there. It came out of a scenario/comparison YOU introduced into the conversation to illustrate YOUR moral sensibilities. Angry with brother v Murder of millions in gas chambers: equally evil. or so you say. Like I said. I cannot recall anyone ever trivializing the moral enormity of the Holocaust in such a ludicrous and obtuse way.

Originally posted by FMF
"Legitimately" according to whom? Me? From my perspective? Of course I can.

Of course you can, but how can you know they are really better if you have no objective standard by which to make that judgement?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
...you believe that society has the right to impose its morals on its people...

Where did I say this? "Impose"? In what way?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course you can, but how can you know they are really better if you have no objective standard by which to make that judgement?

There is no "objective standard". Or are you referring to your personal opinions about moral matters again? Are you on about your "universal truths" again?

Originally posted by FMF
And yet you did. Your "intention" is neither here nor there. It came out of a scenario/comparison YOU introduced into the conversation to illustrate YOUR moral sensibilities. Angry with brother v Murder of millions in gas chambers: equally evil. or so you say. Like I said. I cannot recall anyone ever trivializing the moral enormity of the Holocaust in such a ludicrous and obtuse way.

You could see it as me trivializing the Holocaust, I see it as underlining the severity of sin regardless of how small it causes eternal death.

Originally posted by FMF
Where did I say this? "Impose"? In what way?

The government imposes it's morals on other poeple, that's why people go to jail. I think you said this was a good thing, if you didn't feel free to set the record straight.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Give me a scenario.

No. You said "exterminating another race for no reason is always wrong". So you should suggest a reason for exterminating another race that you would see as making it not wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
There is no "objective standard". Or are you referring to your personal opinions about moral matters again? Are you on about your "universal truths" again?

You assume there is no objective standard, I assume there is. We can't prove it either way. That's why it's called a philosophical presupposition.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The government imposes it's morals on other poeple, that's why people go to jail. I think you said this was a good thing, if you didn't feel free to set the record straight.

I have never claimed that the laws that governments impose on their citizens are synonymous with "morals".

Originally posted by FMF
No. You said "exterminating another race for no reason is always wrong". So you should suggest a reason for exterminating another race that you would see as making it not wrong.

You don't seem to be following here. I believe there are moral absolutes, so logically certain actions can always be wrong. You believe there are no moral absolutes, so logically no action is always wrong. So you are the one who should be giving me an example of when genocide could be morally acceptable. Stop shifting the goal posts here.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You assume there is no objective standard, I assume there is. We can't prove it either way. That's why it's called a philosophical presupposition.

You have downplayed the holocaust; you have justified genocide; you have said the morality of killing people "depends on the situation"; you have said you would avoid lying "if possible". I find your "objectivity" unimpressive and not demonstrated. But if it gives you a sense of purpose in life, keeps you on the straight and narrow, and helps you to come to terms with the inevitability of death, then good for you.

Originally posted by FMF
I have never claimed that the laws that governments impose on their citizens are synonymous with "morals".

Or course because if God doesn't exist, 'morals' are simply what you want them to be.