Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
This is factual: I believe that an objective moral standard exists, you don't, which means I subscribe to moral universalism and you don't.

The fact that you declare that you "subscribe to moral universalism" does not alter the subjective nature of your morality.

Originally posted by @fmf
I have explained to you what the source, nature, purpose and application of morality are ~ as well as what the implications are when people's opinions are different. I have also given you some examples of facts about morals. It's a fact that I believe rape is wrong. It's a fact that you believe rape is wrong. It's a fact that you and I agree about that moral st ...[text shortened]... moral stance. There are all manner of factual statements that can be made about moral opinions.

Do you deny the fact that I believe that an objective moral law exists? If not what have you been on about for the last few pages?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you deny the fact that I believe that an objective moral law exists? If not what have you been on about for the last few pages?

I have been 'on about' how you labelling your opinions as "objective" does not alter them or their nature or their source. If you want to know what I have been on about for these last few pages, just read my posts.

Originally posted by @fmf
I have been 'on about' how you labelling your opinions as "objective" does not alter them or their nature or their source. If you want to know what I have been on about for these last few pages, just read my posts.

Ok let's take my example of the words of Jesus to love your neighbour as you love yourself. If I were to take those words at face value without being influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, why would they not be an objective standard to me?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ok let's take my example of the words of Jesus to love your neighbour as you love yourself. If I were to take those words at face value without being influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, why would they not be an objective standard to me?

It's just some stuff you have absorbed from your human environment. I have absorbed the same words and they influence my morality too. If you and I had been born in the city I live in we would have probably absorbed stuff from Islamic influenced morality, whether we were practising Muslims or not. This is the very nature of morality. It's subjective. It varies from person to person (it is a central plank in our individuality) and varies from culture to culture.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's just some stuff you have absorbed from your human environment. I have absorbed the same words and they influence my morality too. If you and I had been born in the city I live in we would have probably absorbed stuff from Islamic influenced morality, whether we were practising Muslims or not. This is the very nature of morality. It's subjective. It varies ...[text shortened]... erson to person (it is a central plank in our individuality) and varies from culture to culture.

Don't you abide by the morals you think are factually correct and you reject those that you don't think are? Why abide by morals that you yourself aren't convinced to be true?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Don't you abide by the morals you think are factually correct and you reject those that you don't think are? Why abide by morals that you yourself aren't convinced to be true?

This silly question appears to be based on the fabricated 'premise' that I have never discussed morality with you and that you have read absolutely nothing that I have written.

Originally posted by @fmf
This silly question appears to be based on the fabricated 'premise' that I have never discussed morality with you and that you have read absolutely nothing that I have written.

You seem to have implied that you seem to think that the statement "rape is wrong" is always true. If this is not the case feel free to set the record straight.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You seem to have implied that you seem to think that the statement "rape is wrong" is always true. If this is not the case feel free to set the record straight.

We have discussed rape ad nauseam including my response to this question. You ignored it and continued the 'conversation' as if I hadn't answered it, as you are now. I don’t want to play along. Trying asking me something new.

Originally posted by @fmf
We have discussed rape ad nauseam including my response to this question. You ignored it and continued the 'conversation' as if I hadn't answered it, as you are now. I don’t want to play along. Trying asking me something new.

If you don't believe the statement 'rape is wrong' is objectively true, it means you are open to the possibility that a contradictory statement may also be true. I think it is clear what you actually do believe even if you won't admit it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you don't believe the statement 'rape is wrong' is objectively true, it means you are open to the possibility that a contradictory statement may also be true. I think it is clear what you actually do believe even if you won't admit it.

I have already addressed this. You are pretending I haven’t. It seems you are trolling. If there's something else - new or something that moves the conversation forward - I'm willing to engage it. Up to you.

Originally posted by @fmf
I have already addressed this. You are pretending I haven’t. It seems you are trolling. If there's something else - new or something that moves the conversation forward - I'm willing to engage it. Up to you.

If there were no scenario you could conceive whereby the theory of gravity would not apply would you be happy to concede that gravity is objectively true?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
People always justify actions in their mind before they execute them unless they act out of impulse.

I am sure you are not so naive as to think that people do not commit acts which they consider to be morally wrong. The requirement for citation remains.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You have yet to demonstrate how one person's opinions on morality can be superior to someone else's opinions if there is no objective standard by which to make that judgement. Is everyone not entitled to their opinion?

As I have explained to you on at least three prior occaions, yes, everybody is indeed entitled to an opinion, and If that opinion goes against the generally held consensus then it is considered aberrant. This is really so simple that even small children are able to grasp it, what part of it are you struggling with?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
I am sure you are not so naive as to think that people do not commit acts which they consider to be morally wrong. The requirement for citation remains.

I am guessing if I quoted from a book he published expressing his morality and ideological beliefs you would question whether he really believed what he wrote?