Questions on morality

Originally posted by FMF
I disagree. I believe that our capacity to make moral decisions and behave in a morally sound way in our interactions with one another, and do so in the absence of "moral absolutes", is what defines us as human beings and is the 'human spirit' in action.

Of course you disagree. What else can you do? You write your own moral standards for your life and give the reason for it as coming from your environment and nurturing.

The idea that an absolute standard of morality exists independently of your environment and nurturing is beyond belief for you and others.

There's your false dichotomy. Deny the existence of moral absolutes and substitute your own. You may as well deny your own existence.

Originally posted by josephw
The idea that an absolute standard of morality exists independently of your environment and nurturing is beyond belief for you and others.

I am aware that the "idea" exists and that it is an idea that you and Fetchmyjunk subscribe to but that does not make it a reality, and some glib Dasa-like message board swagger about it being "beyond belief for [me] and others" doesn't make your case.

Originally posted by josephw
Deny the existence of moral absolutes and substitute your own. You may as well deny your own existence.

Explain.

Originally posted by josephw
Of course you disagree. What else can you do? You write your own moral standards for your life and give the reason for it as coming from your environment and nurturing.

Your Christian beliefs - and your insistence that your own personal opinions are "objective" and apply to everyone else whether they share your beliefs or not - come from "your environment and nurturing" too.

Originally posted by FMF
But what you are saying is not "simple logic". The statement "In the absence of moral absolutes any standard held by an individual is equally valid as any standard held by another" is a simply an assertion of your personal opinion about morality.

This is why you're confused. I'm not talking about "my" personal opinion.

I'm talking about an objective standard of absolute morality. Your mind is so caught up in the grip of denying the existence of an objective standard of absolute morality that you can't even touch it.

Nevertheless, all you have by way of a moral standard is your own opinion of what it is. Just like anyone else. It's all relative and equally valid.

Like I said before, if there be an absolute standard of morality it has no equal. All other standards are relative and therefore equally valid.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm not talking about "my" personal opinion.

Of course you are. That's what we are all doing here. My Muslim neighbour's personal opinion about these matters we are discussing is different from yours and from mine, just as yours is different from mine.

Originally posted by josephw
Nevertheless, all you have by way of a moral standard is your own opinion of what it is. Just like anyone else. It's all relative and equally valid. Like I said before, [b]if there be an absolute standard of morality it has no equal. All other standards are relative and therefore equally valid.[/b]

So you keep saying. But it is duly noted that you simply repeat it and repeat it when asked to explain it.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm talking about an objective standard of absolute morality. Your mind is so caught up in the grip of denying the existence of an objective standard of absolute morality that you can't even touch it...

I get that you are declaring your own personal opinions about morality to be "an objective standard of absolute morality". It's not difficult at all to see how your religious zeal is making you behave and making you say the things you do.

Originally posted by FMF
I get that you are declaring your own personal opinions about morality to be "an objective standard of absolute morality". It's not difficult at all to see how your religious zeal is making you behave and making you say the things you do.

And I get that you're only declaring your own personal opinion that an objective standard of absolute morality doesn't exist.

And it's not difficult to see why.

For the sake of the argument let's assume such a standard doesn't exist. If not, then both our opinions are relative and equally valid.

But if one does exist both of our opinions are equally invalid.

Originally posted by josephw
For the sake of the argument let's assume such a standard doesn't exist. If not, then both our opinions are relative and equally valid.

"Equally valid"? How so? In whose eyes?

Originally posted by josephw
And I get that you're only declaring your own personal opinion that an objective standard of absolute morality doesn't exist.

OK, so you are declaring your own personal opinions about morality to be the "objective standard of absolute morality". What happens if you meet someone who declares that their opinions about morality, and not yours, are the "objective standard of absolute morality"?

Originally posted by FMF
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.

Either moral truth already exists and we discover it, or everyone creates their own. If moral truth doesn't exist, how is your created truth any more valid/true than someone else's created truth?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Either moral truth already exists and we discover it, or everyone creates their own.

As you know, my view is that morality is a function of human nature and it is also influenced by culture. Your assertion that "moral truth already exists and we discover it" strikes me as your as an upshot of your head being filled with notions-about-supernatural-beings-and-phenomena. You should preach it to the choir. You are never going to superimpose it onto the realities of people who are not superstitious in the way you are.

If moral truth doesn't exist, how is your created truth any more valid/true than someone else's created truth?

Asked & answered umpteen times on the "Hitler" thread.

Originally posted by FMF
As you know, my view is that morality is a function of human nature and it is also influenced by culture. Your assertion that "moral truth already exists and we discover it" strikes me as your as an upshot of your head being filled with notions-about-supernatural-beings-and-phenomena. You should preach it to the choir. You are never going to superimpose it onto ...[text shortened]... than someone else's created truth?

Asked & answered umpteen times on the "Hitler" thread.[/b]

Moral relativism suffers from what is known as the reformer’s dilemma. If moral relativism is true, then societies cannot have moral reformers. Why? Moral reformers are members of a society that stand outside that society’s moral code and pronounce a need for reform and change in that code. For example, Corrie ten Boom risked her life to save Jews during the Holocaust. William Wilberforce sought the abolition of slavery in the late 18th century. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for civil rights in the U.S. If moral relativism is true, then these reformers were immoral. You see, if an act is right if and only if it is in keeping with a given society’s code, then the moral reformer himself is by definition an immoral person. Moral reformers must always be wrong because they go against the code of their society. But such a view is defective for we all know that real moral reform has taken place!

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-truth.htm

Originally posted by josephw

For the sake of the argument let's assume such a standard doesn't exist. If not, then both our opinions are relative and equally valid.

But if one does exist both of our opinions are equally invalid.

Perhaps.

PersonA: I believe murder is immoral.
PersonB: I believe murder is moral.

PersonA: I consider to be murdered is immoral.
PersonB: I consider to be murdered is moral.

PersonB's morality is not consistent and not equally valid.