Hitler

Originally posted by FMF
And you believe that you declaring certain actions to be intrinsically bad ~ and, presumably, certain other actions to not be intrinsically bad ~ is not an outcome of your "personal preference"?

It follows logically from my assumption that an objective standard for right and wrong does exist.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I 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,

You keep declaring your opinions to be "universal truth" and "objectively true". It's meaningless. Your declarations are about as subjective as subjective can be.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It follows logically from my assumption that an objective standard for right and wrong does exist.

And then the substance of this supposed "objective standard" you peddle is merely the result of a whole slew of your superstition-driven personal preferences.

Originally posted by FMF
I 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".

You have derived or been inculcated with your moral sensibilit ...[text shortened]... hopes and fears about supernatural things, to be "an objective moral standard". Sheer nonsense.

Ok so according to you the holocaust cannot be described as 'objectively wrong'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Saying that rape is objectively wrong follows logically from my assumptions about morality. I can't say the same about your assumptions.

So you don't think I believe rape is morally wrong?

Originally posted by FMF
You keep declaring your opinions to be "universal truth" and "objectively true". It's meaningless. Your declarations are about as subjective as subjective can be.

Either you assume that universal truth exists or you don't. I do. If you don't then everything should rightfully be as subjective as subjective can be.

Originally posted by FMF
So you don't think I believe rape is morally wrong?

Well clearly you don't believe that any objective standard for right and wrong exists so you cannot say that rape is objectively wrong and neither can you say that the holocaust was objectively wrong since all moral laws are only subjectively true.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok so according to you the holocaust cannot be described as 'objectively wrong'.

I believe the Holocaust was a moral atrocity on an arguably unparalleled scale. Me attaching the words "objective" or "absolute" or "universal" to whatever I say about it adds nothing, just as it adds nothing to your condemnation of it.

If you were not a Christian, would you be unable to discern the enormity of the crime that the genocide of the European Jews represented? Do you feel you have some special moral insight into the Holocaust because you have declared your insight to be "universally true"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Well clearly you don't believe that any objective standard for right and wrong exists so you cannot say that rape is objectively wrong.

Rape is wrong. What do you honestly think you are achieving by attaching the word "objectively" to your expression of a belief that is identical to mine?

Originally posted by FMF
I believe the Holocaust was a moral atrocity on an arguably unparalleled scale. Me attaching the words "objective" or "absolute" or "universal" to whatever I say about it adds nothing, just as it adds nothing to your condemnation of it.

If you were not a Christian, would you be unable to discern the enormity of the crime that the genocide of the European Je ...[text shortened]... oral insight into the Holocaust because you have declared your insight to be "universally true"?

Would someone who held the opinion that the holocaust was not a moral atrocity be objectively wrong?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Well clearly you don't believe that any objective standard for right and wrong exists so you cannot say that rape is objectively wrong and neither can you say that the holocaust was objectively wrong since all moral laws are only subjectively true.

Your views on morality are every bit as subjective as mine. If a "holy" book and supernatural instructions are what you need to condemn rape, and that's what your personal preferences have brought you to, then I welcome your condemnation of rape ~ whilst wondering what your moral viewpoint would be on rape if ever you were to lose your belief in that "holy" book and those supernatural instructions.

Originally posted by FMF
Rape is wrong. What do you honestly think you are achieving by attaching the word "objectively" to your expression of a belief that is identical to mine?

It seems you don't understand the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective' when discussing ethics.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Would someone who held the opinion that the holocaust was not a moral atrocity be objectively wrong?

I would believe that he was wrong. Wouldn't you? Again, what do you think you are achieving by attaching words like "objectively" to your expression of a moral belief that is the same as mine?

Originally posted by FMF
Rape is wrong. What do you honestly think you are achieving by attaching the word "objectively" to your expression of a belief that is identical to mine?

If your view that 'rape is wrong' is objectively true it means rape is always wrong regardless of the circumstance. Is there a circumstance when you would say the statement 'rape is wrong' is not true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It seems you don't understand the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective' when discussing ethics.

I think you believe that you are somehow adding weight and credibility to the expression of your subjective notions, opinions, theories, assumptions, and superstitions, along with the outcomes of your exercise of your personal preferences, by attaching all manner of meaningless 'intensifiers' to your declarations.