Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't think you can consistently argue that. On the one hand, if FMF's relativist position is correct then he is at liberty to make whatever judgement he likes and because you have temporarily, for the sake of constructing your argument, accepted that then his judgement is entirely valid. So he can make that judgement, that someone else may come to a different conclusion does not render his judgement wrong. On the other hand, if there is an absolute morality then he is either right or wrong about these atrocities but not because someone else might disagree with him, what matters then is if his judgement is in accord with the absolute standard. So I don't think you can claim that there is an inherent contradiction in what he said.
And your perspective hasn't made you call it a moral atrocity?
According to whose moral law would you say it is a moral atrocity? Your own? If you claim that there is no universally correct moral law then your view cannot even be correct to start off with. But once again you fail to see that.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAnd your perspective hasn't made you call it a moral atrocity?
Yes of course it's my perspective. That's all we are doing here: comparing our personal perspectives.
According to whose moral law would you say it is a moral atrocity? Your own?
It's my perspective, not my "law".
If you claim that there is no universally correct moral law then your view cannot even be correct to start off with.
Suggesting over and over again that your perspective is the 'universally correct moral law' does not somehow render your hypothetical moral atrocity any less incoherent or repulsive, just as labelling it "just" or "perfect" or "real", or claiming it is a one and only "moral law", cannot alter it's actual nature.
Originally posted by FMFMaybe we could call it "charming".
[b]And your perspective hasn't made you call it a moral atrocity?
Yes of course it's my perspective. That's all we are doing here: comparing our personal perspectives.
According to whose moral law would you say it is a moral atrocity? Your own?
It's my perspective, not my "law".
If you claim that there is no universally correct moral l ...[text shortened]... rfect" or "real", or claiming it is a one and only "moral law", cannot alter it's actual nature.
Originally posted by FMFYes of course it's my perspective. That's all we are doing here: comparing our personal perspectives.
[b]And your perspective hasn't made you call it a moral atrocity?
Yes of course it's my perspective. That's all we are doing here: comparing our personal perspectives.
According to whose moral law would you say it is a moral atrocity? Your own?
It's my perspective, not my "law".
If you claim that there is no universally correct moral l ...[text shortened]... rfect" or "real", or claiming it is a one and only "moral law", cannot alter it's actual nature.
So would you say one of our perspectives is wrong?
It's my perspective, not my "law".
So can your perspective be incorrect?
Suggesting over and over again that your perspective is the 'universally correct moral law' does not somehow render your hypothetical moral atrocity any less incoherent or repulsive, just as labelling it "just" or "perfect" or "real", or claiming it is a one and only "moral law", cannot alter it's actual nature.
I am assuming that God as portrayed in the Bible does exist. If I assume that I also have to assume that he is the universal law giver. I see no other option there. If he is the one that judges his creation it will be by his criteria. That criteria seems to be quite clear in the scriptures, which I also assume to be true.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSir, you assume too much.
[b]Yes of course it's my perspective. That's all we are doing here: comparing our personal perspectives.
So would you say one of our perspectives is wrong?
It's my perspective, not my "law".
So can your perspective be incorrect?
Suggesting over and over again that your perspective is the 'universally correct moral law' does n ...[text shortened]... iteria. That criteria seems to be quite clear in the scriptures, which I also assume to be true.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes and I clearly explained to you that your position of relativism doesn't make sense, since form your perspective none of our views can be incorrect since according to you there is no universally correct standard. So this entire debate would only make sense if one of our perspectives was incorrect.
We talked about this before and I explained my view clearly. Why do you ignore the stances people actually take and then just regurgitate the same questions over and over again?
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBut from a position of relatavism his view cannot be any more correct than mine. So from his point of view this entire debate is pointless and waste of time.
I don't think you can consistently argue that. On the one hand, if FMF's relativist position is correct then he is at liberty to make whatever judgement he likes and because you have temporarily, for the sake of constructing your argument, accepted that then his judgement is entirely valid. So he can make that judgement, that someone else may come to a ...[text shortened]... andard. So I don't think you can claim that there is an inherent contradiction in what he said.