Originally posted by FMFIf you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon sonship, me, Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
The "fixed cardinal point" of sonship's supposed "moral compass" is that it is the "ultimate morality" to torture someone for a thoughtcrime and to do so for eternity. You - on the "Hitler" thread - defended the genocide portrayed in Joshua 6:21 in the ancient mythology you subscribe to (not to mention your bizarre downplaying of the Holocaust). Presumabl ...[text shortened]... should take it upon yourself to lecture people on the "universality" of your personal opinions.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkEveryone has "the right to make moral judgements". Making moral judgements ~ doing it, being able to do it, needing to do it, benefitting from doing it, benefitting from other people doing it, and taking responsibility for doing it ~ is all one of the things that defines us as human beings.
If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon sonship, me, Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
I may disagree with your superstitious approach to morality and your self-aggrandizing use of terminology, but I am not seeking to deny you your basic human right to make moral judgements and your basic human right to exercise your freedom of speech.
Why are you questioning my right to make moral judgements? I am not asking you "what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon me?" So why are you asking me such a question?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSince you develop your moral standard based on your own opinions, then what justifies your opinions as being the right ones? Your opinions are subjective--not objective. They are based on your opinions so why should we take your moral opinions seriously? And what right do you have to say that anyone else's moral position is right or wrong? Isn't your opinion on morals as valid as someone else's? Furthermore, if you say that someone else's morals are wrong, then aren't you being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on your own subjective opinions?
Everyone has "the right to make moral judgements". Making moral judgements ~ doing it, being able to do it, needing to do it, benefitting from doing it, benefitting from other people doing it, and taking responsibility for doing it ~ is all one of the things that defines us as human beings.
I may disagree with your superstitious approach to morality and your ...[text shortened]... gives you the right to make moral judgments upon me?" So why are you asking me such a question?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat do you mean by "justifies"? "Justifies" in whose eyes?
Since you develop your moral standard based on your own opinions, then what justifies your opinions as being the right ones? Your opinions are subjective--not objective. They are based on your opinions so why should we take your moral opinions seriously? And what right do you have to say that anyone else's moral position is right or wrong? Isn't your ...[text shortened]... u being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on your own subjective opinions?
[The rest of your text is just you rehashing already-answered questions for the umpteenth time.]
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFIf you use your own opinions in combination with those of society, you are subjectively deciding what you think is right and wrong in the society around you. You are judging society's morals and deciding which ones are right and wrong, which ultimately brings us back to the first problem where you're deriving morality from your own opinions. That's logically befuddled.
What do you mean by "justifies"? "Justifies" in whose eyes?
[The rest of your text is just you rehashing already-answered questions for the umpteenth time.]
So you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones. (By saying there are no moral absolutes, you are saying there is no single correct answer to a particular question of morality, yet at the same time you are claiming that you have the correct answer to particular moral questions!)
Since you don't have any moral standing by which to make objective moral claims, then all you can say is that you don't like the God of Christianity. You can't say that the God of Christianity as found in the Bible is objectively morally wrong because you don't have an objective moral standard by which to make such a judgment. You only have a subjective opinion. If you then try to impose your opinions on others, you become guilty of arrogance and judgmentalism.
All you have to do is ignore the logic, ignore their moral dilemma, and continue along in a subjective, opinionated, emotional path of moral relativism while you condemn the actions of anyone who doesn't agree with you. I guess rational ignorance is bliss.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have already addressed all this self-important waffle about the supposed "objectivity" of your own personal opinions regarding morality which you have trotted out over and over again.
If you use your own opinions in combination with those of society, you are subjectively deciding what you think is right and wrong in the society around you. You are judging society's morals and deciding which ones are right and wrong, which ultimately brings us back to the first problem where you're deriving morality from your own opinions. That's log ...[text shortened]... condemn the actions of anyone who doesn't agree with you. I guess rational ignorance is bliss.
If you are interested in my viewpoint - which appears not to be the case, as you scarcely acknowledge anything said to you by anyone with different views from you, let alone respond to it - you will find it on the "Hitler" thread.
Having said that, this latest repetitious dollop of pompous assertions from you has an air of you declaring victory. If that means you're going to stop regurgitating your purported "universal truths", comparing morality to maths, and blanking out what people say, then that can only be a good thing.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMy standard is of value to me.
If your conscience is shaped by the environment in which you live and not placed there by God, how do you know for sure that it is morally sound?
So you agree that torturing a baby for fun may not be right for you but could well be right for someone else?
If you say that people from a different society should not adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong, then how is your standard of any value to anyone?
Here endeth the lesson.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThe fact that you clearly don't want God's laws to be my objective standard doesn't mean that they aren't in fact an objective standard that I use. Maybe you could also learn something from the most cited legal scholar in the writings of America’s Founding Fathers.
I have already addressed all this self-important waffle about the supposed "objectivity" of your own personal opinions regarding morality which you have trotted out over and over again.
If you are interested in my viewpoint - which appears not to be the case, as you scarcely acknowledge anything said to you by anyone with different views from you, let alone ...[text shortened]... mparing morality to maths, and blanking out what people say, then that can only be a good thing.
https://lessermagistrate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/05-Gods-Law-is-the-Objective-Standard-for-Law.pdf
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour preoccupation with your god figure and with how his wishes have supposedly been communicated to you through some kind of magic is a a whole jumble of conjecture and wishful thinking entirely within the domain of your personal subjectivity. You can insist, repeatedly, that it is all "objective" and "universal" until you go blue in the face, it won't alter a thing.
The fact that you clearly don't want God's laws to be my objective standard doesn't mean that they aren't in fact an objective standard that I use. Maybe you could also learn something from the most cited legal scholar in the writings of America’s Founding Fathers.
https://lessermagistrate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/05-Gods-Law-is-the-Objective-Standard-for-Law.pdf
Originally posted by josephwThis is just nonsense.
Yes it does. Moral absolutes didn't just happen without a cause. Otherwise they're not absolute. As one who has rejected the concept of a moral law giver one's perception of what moral absolutes infer leaves one with the idea that all views on morality are equally valid, none being absolute.
Without an absolute standard of morality all views are equally valid.
For each action, an individual weighs the considerations of which he or she is aware and makes a decision based thereon. Some actions are more easily weighed than others. Consider vegetarianism; it seems to me quite easy to conclude that vegetarianism is a more positive moral position than the converse, and yet most people, given the choice, do not choose to eschew meat. Most people would agree that to steal from another person is morally wrong, however, under certain circumstances we may all consider that actually, it may be morally acceptable to do so than not. All of what I consider to be right-thinking people would consider random murder of another human being to be morally wrong. That doesn't mean that there is an absolute moral judgement, it just means it's an easy decision to consider. Whatever benefits one may perceive to one's self from comitting the murder, they are almost certainly not going to outweigh the negative consequences to the victim and the victim's family and friends. If somebody claims that he or she considers random murder to be morally acceptable, no right-thinking person is going to agree that his view has equal validity to the view considering it contrary to good moral behaviour. That said, it might just be that there does exist some argument which completely refutes that position, and would convince us all that random murder is actually a morally positive action. One doesn't simply accept the stated position; one evaluates the argument in favour of the position.
If your logic tells you that the rejection of moral absolutes means that all views on morality are equally valid, then quite clearly your logic is faulty.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk'Thou shalt not steal'. Is this one of your moral absolutes?
The fact that you clearly don't want God's laws to be my objective standard doesn't mean that they aren't in fact an objective standard that I use. Maybe you could also learn something from the most cited legal scholar in the writings of America’s Founding Fathers.
https://lessermagistrate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/05-Gods-Law-is-the-Objective-Standard-for-Law.pdf
How old are you?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSuch criticisms mean nothing to the likes of josephw and FMJ. They love false dichotomies so much that they use them as their primary debating method.
If your logic tells you that the rejection of moral absolutes means that all views on morality are equally valid, then quite clearly your logic is faulty.
Originally posted by FMFIf there are no moral absolutes it means there is no single correct answer to a question of morality. For example if I were to ask you is it always wrong to commit the act of rape, you cannot say yes, because you would then be agreeing to a moral absolute. Yet you have told me that rape is always wrong. Which means you do believe in at least one moral absolute.
I have already addressed all this self-important waffle about the supposed "objectivity" of your own personal opinions regarding morality which you have trotted out over and over again.
If you are interested in my viewpoint - which appears not to be the case, as you scarcely acknowledge anything said to you by anyone with different views from you, let alone ...[text shortened]... mparing morality to maths, and blanking out what people say, then that can only be a good thing.
2 edits
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkDefine "rape". Now look at your definition and find the words whose meaning make it objectively wrong and/or always wrong.
If there are no moral absolutes it means there is no single correct answer to a question of morality. For example if I were to ask you is it always wrong to commit the act of rape, you cannot say yes, because you would then be agreeing to a moral absolute. Yet you have told me that rape is always wrong. Which means you do believe in at least one moral absolute.
Take this definition from dictionary.com:
"unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim. 2. statutory rape."
Add, a definition of statutory rape, perhaps such sexual activity against a minor, who cannot be considered consenting even if they do consent.
Now, what part makes it objectively wrong? Non-consent? Or is it the body parts involved? Or is it the gestalt? Is it God's saying it, that makes it objectively wrong, as opposed to subjectively wrong or not wrong at all?
That is, if you want to have an actual discussion.