Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe thought of such an act is revolting to me, and I hope it is to everyone. That is, I have a subjective reaction of revulsion that depends to some extent on the amount of harm, and I hope everybody does. That is sufficient for me.
Would you agree that harming/killing/raping a child for the sole purpose of 'having fun' is always wrong?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat do you mean by 'wrong'?
Would you agree that harming/killing/raping a child for the sole purpose of 'having fun' is always wrong?
Do you mean:
1. You will not do it.
2. You would not let someone else do it if you could help it.
3. Society will punish it.
4. God will punish it.
5. Something else.
Clearly there are people who do harm/kill/rape children for the sole purpose of 'having fun'. So if you mean 1 or 2 then your 'wrong' is necessarily relative. If we can find at least one society that that approves of those actions then it again is relative. If it all depends on God, then it is just Gods opinion. What other suggestions do you have?
Originally posted by JS357So if someone felt differently about the issue you would have no grounds to challenge them and prove them wrong?
The thought of such an act is revolting to me, and I hope it is to everyone. That is, I have a subjective reaction of revulsion that depends to some extent on the amount of harm, and I hope everybody does. That is sufficient for me.
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357So right and wrong only depends on how people feel? Is nothing ever right or wrong independent of how people feel?
That depends on how they felt. What do you mean?
"Person A feels that action x is morally acceptable in scenario y, while person B feels that action x is not morally acceptable in the exact same scenario y."
If you were to believe there are no moral absolutes , it means person A and person B are both right ? Or would only the one that you side with be right? And that would vary from person to person?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI just checked the previous page, can't find your question.
I note that you dodged my question on the previous page.
In my case, I do believe that morality is absolute, but I do not take your naive approach of declaring particular statements such as 'its wrong to kill children' to be absolute. Thus I avoid the problems you are having. I also probably mean something different from you when I talk of morality.
Explain what absolute morality means to you.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSince there is no such thing as 'absolute morality', a term made up by the religious set to make a theoretical absolute morality they conveniently have control over, therefore they can dictate these 'absolutes'. In truth there are no absolutes, in one country it is abhorrent to be cannabalistic but in others almost a norm. Don't see a deity coming down and laying down the law on that one. And there will never be such an outrage from any deity, we have already had that rubbed clearly into our noses by the hundreds of millions killed in all sorts of horrible ways in WW1 and WW2, flamethrowers, phosphorous bombs, rape as a weapon, Mengele style 'experiments', torture and horrible killings of children and the like and no deity came down and condemned it. So there is clearly no such thing as moral absolutes. Which just leaves humans to define morality as they see fit.
Would you agree that harming/killing/raping a child for the sole purpose of 'having fun' is always wrong?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkOf course person A can try to get person B to agree with him. And v/v. They can explain how harming children messes them up, they can use religious reasons, appeal to the idea of moral absolutes, relate their personal history to elicit empathy, etc, to get the other person to see things their way. If the only thing that will convince you of something is to prove it's a moral absolute, I'd like to know what a proof would look like.
So right and wrong only depends on how people feel? Is nothing ever right or wrong independent of how people feel?
"Person A feels that action x is morally acceptable in scenario y, while person B feels that action x is not morally acceptable in the exact same scenario y."
If you were to believe there are no moral absolutes , it means person A and ...[text shortened]... ? Or would only the one that you side with be right? And that would vary from person to person?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt is noted that you have dodged it twice in a row. Dishonesty much.
I just checked the previous page, can't find your question.
Explain what absolute morality means to you.
My view of morality is about how we treat others. If we treat others well that is morally good, if we treat them badly that is morally bad - with allowance for self harm being avoided. Such a morality is necessarily absolute. Whether you obey such a morality is another matter altogether. So killing babies for fun is morally wrong under my definition of morality, but there are people that kill babies. Nevertheless they remain wrong. If God kills babies for fun, he too is wrong under my definition.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOn page 21 you claimed I didn't answer a question on the previous page. So I checked page 20 and there is not a single post there from you.
It is noted that you have dodged it twice in a row. Dishonesty much.
[b]Explain what absolute morality means to you.
My view of morality is about how we treat others. If we treat others well that is morally good, if we treat them badly that is morally bad - with allowance for self harm being avoided. Such a morality is necessarily absolute. Whethe ...[text shortened]... evertheless they remain wrong. If God kills babies for fun, he too is wrong under my definition.[/b]
Don't you decide what is a 'good' way to treat someone and what is 'bad' way to treat someone? How is your subjective opinion absolute?
In essence you are claiming that your own moral law is absolute and even God is subjected to it? 🙄
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkCan you please stop talking about moral absolutes and raping/killing people for fun.
On page 21 you claimed I didn't answer a question on the previous page. So I checked page 20 and there is not a single post there from you.
Don't you decide what is a 'good' way to treat someone and what is 'bad' way to treat someone? How is your subjective opinion absolute?
In essence you are claiming that your own moral law is absolute and even God is subjected to it? 🙄
Such repetitive topics have no place in a thread about the benefits of atheism, where morality is understood correctly as man made and killing and raping people is both socially.and morally unacceptable.(Even without a made up God to tell us so).
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf morality is only man made what makes the morals of one man or one society better than the morals of another if they are contradictory but derived by the same means? This is a question you have not answered and will continue to ignore or pretend that you have answered it. You dear Sir are in denial. You continue to blank out the obvious.
Can you please stop talking about moral absolutes and raping/killing people for fun.
Such repetitive topics have no place in a thread about the benefits of atheism, where morality is understood correctly as man made and killing and raping people is both socially.and morally unacceptable.(Even without a made up God to tell us so).
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have answered it every time you've asked it. My answer won't change.
If morality is only man made what makes the morals of one man or one society better than the morals of another if they are contradictory but derived by the same means? This is a question you have not answered and will continue to ignore or pretend that you have answered it. You dear Sir are in denial. You continue to blank out the obvious.
I fully accept morality of one society may (and does) vary from another society. I also don't claim my morality is better, only that it is my morality. What part of that aren't you understanding?!
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat do you mean IF morality is man made? Of course it's man made, no god was involved so we say when there are moral absolutes and there may be no moral absolutes.
If morality is only man made what makes the morals of one man or one society better than the morals of another if they are contradictory but derived by the same means? This is a question you have not answered and will continue to ignore or pretend that you have answered it. You dear Sir are in denial. You continue to blank out the obvious.
Humans make the moral rules not some demented deity.
