Hitler

Originally posted by FMF
I have told you time and time again what I believe are the sources of our morality. These sources are the same for both of us.

We clearly have different beliefs about morality.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You assume that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong yet you say that rape is always wrong.

Are you telling me that you would be unable to perceive and condemn rape as being morally wrong without telling yourself that a supernatural being has given you an "absolute standard for right and wrong" that enabled to you to do so?

Originally posted by FMF
Well at least you are admitting that your declarations about moral matters are based on things that you assume. Do you think you would you be unable to act in a morally sound way without your assumptions about the Bible?

To some degree I think I would since I believe God has given everyone a conscience. But I do believe that this God-given moral consciousness within each of us can become “seared” and be rendered insensitive. Such a conscience does not work properly and can be dulled of the sense of right and wrong. Just as the hide of an animal scarred with a branding iron becomes numb to further pain, so the heart of an individual with a seared conscience is desensitized to moral pangs. Such individuals can start to rationalize their actions and may even rationalize the holocaust just like Hitler did.

https://www.gotquestions.org/seared-conscience.html

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

To some degree I think I would since I believe God has given everyone a conscience. But I do believe that this God-given moral consciousness within each of us can become “seared” and be rendered insensitive. Such a conscience does not work properly and can be dulled of the sense of right and wrong. Just as the hide of an animal scarred with a branding iron becomes numb to further pain, so the heart of an individual with a seared conscience is desensitized to moral pangs. Such individuals can start to rationalize their actions and may even rationalize the holocaust just like Hitler did.

This is plagiarized.

Originally posted by FMF
Are you telling me that you would be unable to perceive and condemn rape as being morally wrong without telling yourself that a supernatural being has given you an "absolute standard for right and wrong" that enabled to you to do so?

That is not what I am saying, but I am saying that if I were to assume there is no absolute standard for right and wrong it would be much easier for me to rationalize the likes of rape, deceit, and even mass murder.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But I do believe that this God-given moral consciousness within each of us can become “seared” and be rendered insensitive.

Do you think that, because I do not acknowledge that my moral consciousness is "God-given", that my condemnation of rape is meaningless?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
That is not what I am saying, but I am saying that if I were to assume there is no absolute standard for right and wrong it would be much easier for me to rationalize the likes of rape, deceit, and even mass murder.

But you think that you would be able to rationalize that rape and murder are morally wrong even without telling yourself that your rationalizations coincide with a supernaturally bestowed "absolute standard for right and wrong"?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think that, because I do not acknowledge that my moral consciousness is "God-given", that my condemnation of rape is meaningless?

If you do not believe that your moral consciousness is God-given and that there is an objective standard of right and wrong that is set by God then your condemnation of rape is merely your personal preference and you would still have to admit there may be cases where rape is morally justifiable since morality would then just be based on everyone's subjective opinion.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

To some degree I think I would since I believe God has given everyone a conscience. But I do believe that this God-given moral consciousness within each of us can become “seared” and be rendered insensitive. Such a conscience does not work properly and can be dulled of the sense of right and wrong. Just as the hide of an animal scarred with a branding iron becomes numb to further pain, so the heart of an individual with a seared conscience is desensitized to moral pangs. Such individuals can start to rationalize their actions and may even rationalize the holocaust just like Hitler did.

Do you rationalize your plagiarism as deceitful or not deceitful?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you do not believe that your moral consciousness is God-given and that there is an objective standard of right and wrong that is set by God then your condemnation of rape is merely your personal preference and you would still have to admit there may be cases where rape is morally justifiable since morality would then just be based on everyone's subjective opinion.

I have addressed your use of the expression "personal preference" [and explored the role "personal preference" plays in the declarations you make about the universality of your own personal opinions] numerous times but you have just been blanking it out time and time again. If you are averse to discussing it, you ought to have the manners to stop bringing it up.

Originally posted by FMF
But you think that you would be able to rationalize that rape and murder are morally wrong even without telling yourself that your rationalizations coincide with a supernaturally bestowed "absolute standard for right and wrong"?

If I were to assume that there is no objective standard for right and wrong then my belief that rape is wrong would merely be my subjective opinion and I would not be able to say unequivocally that someone who held the subjective opinion that rape is not wrong holds an incorrect view.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If I were to assume that there is no objective standard for right and wrong then my belief that rape is wrong would merely be my subjective opinion and I would not be able to say unequivocally that someone who held the subjective opinion that rape is not wrong holds an incorrect view.

You appear to be claiming that you can only condemn rape as morally wrong because of your religious beliefs and you believe I cannot condemn morally wrong because I don't share your religious beliefs.

Originally posted by FMF
I have addressed your use of the expression "personal preference" [and explored the role "personal preference" plays in the declarations you make about the universality of your own personal opinions] numerous times but you have just been blanking it out time and time again. If you are averse to discussing it, you ought to have the manners to stop bringing it up.

Of course you don't like that fact that morality becomes a matter of personal preference when you assume there is no absolute standard for right and wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
You appear to be claiming that you can only condemn rape as morally wrong because of your religious beliefs and you believe I cannot condemn morally wrong because I don't share your religious beliefs.

No that is not what I am saying of course you can condemn rape as morally wrong, but can you unequivocally state that someone who does not hold the same view that you hold about rape is wrong in their belief if they were to believe that rape is morally justifiable?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If I were to assume that there is no objective standard for right and wrong then my belief that rape is wrong would merely be my subjective opinion and I would not be able to say unequivocally that someone who held the subjective opinion that rape is not wrong holds an incorrect view.

But your beliefs in supernatural beings and supernatural events are entirely rooted in your subjective opinions and personal preferences. Your unilateral declarations that your own opinions constitute "universal truths" is entirely subjective.