Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou mean people saving their families from dangerous immoral actions is, in and of itself, an immoral act if it involves telling the lies to the attackers or or people posing the threat?
Sometimes people do bad things to save their families. That doesn't make the bad things good.
Originally posted by FMFThe thing is if you decide that something is not intrinsically wrong then it means there is no objective standard by which to measure if it is 'morally justifiable'. Everyone's standard of what is 'morally justifiable' is then subjectively right.
How can you possibly claim that instigating harm, deception or coercion is "intrinsically wrong" when there are clearly circumstances in which such actions are morally justifiable?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour choice of and reference to ancient Hebrew mythology and your unilateral declaration that your own views constitute "universal truths" are entirely subjective, you shouldn't kid yourself.
Everyone's standard of what is 'morally justifiable' is then subjectively right.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkExercising your personal preference for a particular set of superstitions and folk tales from a particular religion and then reserving the right to interpret its texts as you see fit, does not establish an "objective standard" no matter how many times you insist that it does.
The thing is if you decide that something is not intrinsically wrong then it means there is no objective standard by which to measure if it is 'morally justifiable'.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIf no objective standard for right and wrong exists, the term 'morally justifiable' is just a cute synonym for 'personal preference'. And by the way you cannot say the holocaust was objectively bad.
You can think of no circumstances whatsoever in which it would be morally justifiable to deceive someone?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk6,000,000 innocent people were murdered using a kind of industrialized methodology on account of their ethnicity. Taken as one event, or even as 6,000,000 events, it represents the greatest moral atrocity of the C20th. I've told you that I believe that doing people harm is morally unsound. You don't think the Holocaust qualifies?
And by the way you cannot say the holocaust was objectively bad.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have plucked stuff out of some ancient religious texts and you insist that a supernatural being has communicated his wishes to you, and you have taken it upon yourself to insist that all this stuff is "universally true" and applies to everyone. This is not an "objective standard"; it is about as subjective as one can get and it is entirely a matter of your "personal preference".
If no objective standard for right and wrong exists, the term 'morally justifiable' is just a cute synonym for 'personal preference'.
Originally posted by FMFDo you believe that an objective moral standard for right and wrong exists?
6,000,000 innocent people were murdered using a kind of industrialized methodology on account of their ethnicity. Taken as one event, or even as 6,000,000 events, it represents the greatest moral atrocity of the C20th. I've told you that I believe that doing people harm is morally unsound. You don't think the Holocaust qualifies?
Yes or No?
Originally posted by FMFSo you are basically saying that no objective standard for right and wrong exists? Is that correct?
You have plucked stuff out of some ancient religious texts and you insist that a supernatural being has communicated his wishes to you, and you have taken it upon yourself to insist that all this stuff is "universally true" and applies to everyone. This is not an "objective standard"; it is about as subjective as one can get and it is entirely a matter of your "personal preference".
Originally posted by FMFI assume that universal truth does exist, it seems you don't. Something can only be deemed to be objectively true if it is a universal truth,
So you are hereby declaring your belief that your own beliefs constitute "universal truth", is that right? And you are also declaring that this declaration is "objective"?
Originally posted by FMFSaying that rape is objectively wrong follows logically from my assumptions about morality. I can't say the same about your assumptions.
So if you declare rape to be morally unsound it makes sense (because of your religious beliefs) but if I declare rape to be morally unsound "it makes no logical sense" (because I don't share your religious beliefs), have I understood you right? If you lost your religious beliefs, do you believe your moral condemnation of rape would go from making logical sense to not making logical sense, as a result?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have never described the moral sensibilities that I have derived or been inculcated with by way of nature and nurture as "objective". I think it'd be nonsense for me to do so; just as I think it's abject nonsense when you try to describe your moral sensibilities as "objective" and "universal".
Do you believe that an objective moral standard for right and wrong exists?
Yes or No?
You have derived or been inculcated with your moral sensibilities in essentially the same way as I have ~ your misanthropic religious zealotry being part and parcel of "nurture" ~ but during your nurture process you have been filled with pretentious nonsense about how your opinions are somehow not "subjective" while those of people - who are not superstitious in the way you are - make no logical sense.
Do I believe that an objective moral standard for right and wrong exists? Even a cursory knowledge of the diversity and change of human condition down through history makes you look foolish, I'm afraid, when you declare your own pet theories and opinions, along with your credulous hopes and fears about supernatural things, to be "an objective moral standard". Sheer nonsense.