Hitler

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you agree then that morality for you is merely a matter of personal preference?

No don't be silly. I have explained repeatedly what I believe to be the sources of moral sense and the basis for morally sound behaviour, and the suggestion - repeated over and over and over and over again and over again - that it's "merely a matter of personal preference" is yours and not mine.

Originally posted by FMF
No don't be silly. I have explained repeatedly what I believe to be the sources of moral sense and the basis for morally sound behaviour, and the suggestion - repeated over and over and over and over again and over again - that it's "merely a matter of personal preference" is yours and not mine.

If morality is not absolute, it is a matter of personal preference, no?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If morality is not absolute, it is a matter of personal preference, no?

No. It is not. I have explained exactly what I think the sources of our moral sensibilities and actions are, but you have ignored it and have refused to engage or discuss my repeated attempts to tell you what I believe - and instead you have asked this same question over and over and over again. My answer is "no". "No it isn't". I am saying "no". The answer is "no".

As for your bandying about of the word "absolute" with reference to your own sense of "morality" and perceived "truths", we have discussed that ad nauseam so you know exactly what I think about it.

Originally posted by FMF
No. It is not. I have explained exactly what I think the sources of our moral sensibilities and actions are, but you have ignored it and have refused to engage or discuss my repeated attempts to tell you what I believe - and instead you have asked this same question over and over and over again. My answer is "no". "No it isn't". I am saying "no". The answer is " ...[text shortened]... perceived "truths", we have discussed that ad nauseam so you know exactly what I think about it.

Either morality is absolute or it is a matter of personal preference. Take your pick.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Either morality is absolute or it is a matter of personal preference.

I disagree for the reasons I have given repeatedly. And it's completely meaningless to me for you to describe your "morality" as "absolute". The word "absolute" is merely an intensifier. It has no effect on the traction that your personal opinions about your own source or sense of morality have as far as I am concerned. Nor does you repeating the word "absolute" over and over and over and over again.

Originally posted by FMF
I disagree for the reasons I have given repeatedly. And it's completely meaningless to me for you to describe your "morality" as "absolute". The word "absolute" is merely an intensifier. It has no effect on the traction that your personal opinions about your own source or sense of morality have as far as I am concerned. Nor does you repeating the word "absolute" over and over and over and over again.

So take the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", that is written in the Bible, and show me exactly why you think it is not absolute.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So take the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", that is written in the Bible, and show me exactly why you think it is not absolute.

"Absolute" in what way? It's just a moral 'rule' that billions of people subscribe to. And countless millions of people who subscribe to the rule break it anyway. What's "absolute" about it? Does the word "absolute" just indicate that you feel very, very strongly about adultery being immoral? Is that what "absolute" means here?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So take the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", that is written in the Bible, and show me exactly why you think it is not absolute.

Does your use of the word "absolute" indicate that you are absolutely convinced that the rule was somehow given or revealed to you by a supernatural being that you just so happen to believe in? Is that what you mean by "absolute"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
He just doesn't seem willing to admit that 'morality' to him is merely a matter of personal preference.

I understand clearly that 'YOU' want him to 'admit that morality to him is merely a matter of personal preference.' However just because 'you' want him to admit such a thing doesn't make it so.
Your tiresome tactic appears to be to repeatedly ask someone to admit something that 'you' have decided they believe, even when they have made their beliefs evident. (Perhaps in an attempt to 'wear them down' and win some kind of hollow victory).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I understand clearly that 'YOU' want him to 'admit that morality to him is merely a matter of personal preference.' However just because 'you' want him to admit such a thing doesn't make it so.
Your tiresome tactic appears to be to repeatedly ask someone to admit something that 'you' have decided they believe, even when they have made their beliefs evident. (Perhaps in an attempt to 'wear them down' and win some kind of hollow victory).

I disagree and you are engaging in appealing to personal considerations rather than the substance of what is being said.

The problem with the approach, 'either it is or it is not', is that it presents a dilemma which does not take into account other possibilities. However this does not negate the fact that there may be only two possibilities as in a boolean expression.

You shall not commit adultery seems fairly absolute. What is there that is open to interpretation? Even if we ourselves take a subjective approach to this absolute it does not diminish the fact that the sentiment itself is expressed in absolute terms. However it may not follow on that because an expression is absolute that 'either morality is absolute or it is a matter of personal preference', although it may be the case. It could for example be that all morality is subjective in the sense that we accept it, even though it may be expressed in absolute terms, 'I would never do that, its forbidden in scripture', or it could infact be that for us its absolute even though we are expressing a subjective opinion, 'I would never watch Gillingham, they really suck'.

All in all its quite confusing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You shall not commit adultery seems fairly absolute.

What is it you think attaching the word "absolute" adds to the 'rule' that 'adultery is immoral'?

I also believe adultery is immoral but I don't feel the need to indicate my vehemence or sincerity or strength of feeling about the issue ~ or whatever it is religionists like Fetchmyjunk are trying to achieve ~ by adding the word "absolute" to every mention such 'rules'.

It reminds me of posters like josephw capitalizing the words the and truth to make "The Truth" when they talk about their opinions about certain things. What does it achieve in a discussion with people who have different views and opinions?

Originally posted by FMF
"Absolute" in what way? It's just a moral 'rule' that billions of people subscribe to. And countless millions of people who subscribe to the rule break it anyway. What's "absolute" about it? Does the word "absolute" just indicate that you feel very, very strongly about adultery being immoral? Is that what "absolute" means here?

Absolute in the sense that it is always immoral.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Absolute in the sense that it is always immoral.

So if you think adultery is immoral and is always immoral just say so. You appending the word "absolute" to it means nothing to me. It's like when you go on and on and on about your religious views being "absolute truths"; it's all just posturing blather.

You have obtained your sense of morality, in part anyway (i.e. putting aside the hard wiring aspect), from your environment, your upbringing, your interactions, and your experiences, just like every other human being that has ever lived including me.

You referring to what you believe as "absolute" does not alter this nor does it add anything to the validity of whatever moral sensibilities or codes you espouse.

Originally posted by FMF
So if you think adultery is immoral and is always immoral just say so. You appending the word "absolute" to it means nothing to me. It's like when you go on and on and on about your religious views being "absolute truths"; it's all just posturing blather.

You have obtained your sense of morality, in part anyway (i.e. putting aside the hard wiring aspect), fr ...[text shortened]... s nor does it add anything to the validity of whatever moral sensibilities or codes you espouse.

Would you say the act of adultery is intrinsically bad? Or do you subscribe to moral nihilism?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Would you say the act of adultery is intrinsically bad? Or do you subscribe the moral nihilism?

In so far as adultery harms others, involves deception or coercion, or the breaking contracts/promises, I think it is morally unsound.

The definition I get with a quick Google is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse". I would say that such a sexual relationship that has the willing and informed and uncoerced consent of the spouse and the arrangement is not achieved through the instigation of harm or deception or psychological pressure or threats [or any other forms of coercion] or the breaking of contracts or reneging on promises [that the spouse wants to be kept], then I don't see it as morally unsound.

That's my take on a range of human behaviours that collectively might be referred to as "adultery". If you agree with these views of mine, that's fine, it's good, it means we agree ~ and even if the way you arrived at having more or less the same views as me was because you read about it in a book or you think a supernatural being told you that adultery is immoral, then I'm fine with that.