Questions on morality

Originally posted by FMF
I have told you umpteen times what I believe are the sources of my moral sensibilities (they are the same as yours), what morality is for, how one arrives at a decision as to the correct and incorrect thing to do, and yet you are asking yet again. Please refer to my earlier answers on the other thread.

So tell me this, assuming we all have the same sources of moral sensibilities, how would you know that your answer to a question of morality is correct and someone else's isn't? You are saying there is a correct and an incorrect thing to do, in a given scenario. How could you logically even know that your view is correct and another view is incorrect, when you also claim that no single view can be correct?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So tell me this, assuming we all have the same sources of moral sensibilities, how would you know that your answer to a question of morality is correct and someone else's isn't?

Go back and read my thoughts on this issue on the "Hitler" thread.

Originally posted by FMF
Go back and read my thoughts on this issue on the "Hitler" thread.

Yes I did read your thoughts, and I am asking you, if there are no moral absolutes, how does it logically follow that your thoughts on morality can be correct and someone else's thoughts can't, especially when the sources of your moral sensibilities are supposedly the same?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yes I did read your thoughts, and I am asking you, if there are no moral absolutes, how does it logically follow that your thoughts on morality can be correct and someone else's thoughts can't, especially when the sources of your moral sensibilities are supposedly the same?

Well you are behaving as if you didn't. So, go see the other thread. It's all on there.

Originally posted by FMF
Well you are behaving as if you didn't. So, go see the other thread. It's all on there.

Nice dodge.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Nice dodge.

Like I said on the previous page, there is nothing edifying or persuasive about the doctrine you promote in your rather autistic way - nor about the borderline dishonest way you conduct yourself.

Originally posted by FMF
Like I said on the previous page, there is nothing edifying or persuasive about the doctrine you promote in your rather autistic way - nor about the borderline dishonest way you conduct yourself.

Of course when you can't deal with an argument you revert to insults. Or you claim to have answered it on a different thread. You yourself admitted that lying can be morally acceptable, so there is that as well.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course when you can't deal with an argument you revert to insults. Or you claim to have answered it on a different thread. You yourself admitted that lying can be morally acceptable, so there is that as well.

I have a feeling this is the denouement you have been seeking all along.

Originally posted by FMF
I have a feeling this is the denouement you have been seeking all along.

All I need from you is a simple explanation, one you would give to someone with autism, as to how you make the leap from "There are no moral absolutes" to "my view on morality is correct and yours is false".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
All I need from you is a simple explanation, one you would give to someone with autism, as to how you make the leap from "There are no moral absolutes" to "my view on morality is correct and yours is false".

Try the "Hitler" thread. The answer can be gleaned from the dozens and dozens and dozens of posts of mine that you simply blanked out.

Originally posted by FMF
Try the "Hitler" thread. The answer can be gleaned from the dozens and dozens and dozens of posts of mine that you simply blanked out.

Your favorite dodge, pretend to have answered a question in another thread. It's getting lame.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Your favorite dodge, pretend to have answered a question in another thread. It's getting lame.

The question you ask has been answered several times. You are simply unwilling or unable to comprehend the explanation. Let us try a different tack; list some of these moral absolutes of which you are aware please.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
The question you ask has been answered several times. You are simply unwilling or unable to comprehend the explanation. Let us try a different tack; list some of these moral absolutes of which you are aware please.

Is the following statement true or false? “It is always wrong for everyone to torture babies to death merely for one’s personal pleasure.”

A) It is true.
B) It is not true.
C) It is neither true or false
D) It is a trick question and has no meaning

Originally posted by wolfgang59
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.

What is inconsistent about what person B has said?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Is the following statement true or false? “It is always wrong for everyone to torture babies to death merely for one’s personal pleasure.”

A) It is true.
B) It is not true.
C) It is neither true or false
D) It is a trick question and has no meaning

(e) True to the best of my knowledge, although that knowledge, like yours, is limited. I of course accept as I presume would any reasonable person that there may be circumstances of which I am unaware under which the statement would be false.

Is that the only moral absolute you have? You have repeatedly claimed that you believe in moral absoluteS. Please list some of them. How do you divine these moral absolutes? Do you rely on your scripture? Do you therefore agree with Eladar, that the proscription against theft reflects a moral absolute? And the rest of the commandments? And slavery, that's ok?