Questions on morality

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You don't seem to be following here. I believe there are moral absolutes, so logically certain actions can always be wrong. You believe there are no moral absolutes, so logically no action is always wrong. So you are the one who should be giving me an example of when genocide could be morally acceptable. Stop shifting the goal posts here.

You said "exterminating another race for no reason is always wrong". And now you are apparently trying to back away from the fact you said it. If you believe "exterminating another race for no reason is always wrong" then it is implicit that you believe "exterminating another race for a reason is not always wrong". The onus is on you to suggest a "reason" that would satisfy you that it was a situation in which genocide would not be wrong.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Or course because if God doesn't exist, 'morals' are simply what you want them to be.

I wrote three long posts on what I think morality is. It's as if you didn't read them.

Originally posted by FMF
You said "exterminating another race for no reason is always wrong". And now you are apparently trying to back away from the fact you said it. If you believe "exterminating another race for no reason is always wrong" then it is implicit that you believe "exterminating another race for a reason is not always wrong". The onus is on you to suggest a "reason" that would satisfy you that it was a situation in which genocide would not be wrong.

So have you made up your mind, are you arguing for the existence of moral absolutes or against the existence of moral absolutes? I believe exterminating a race for no reason is always wrong. If you don't believe in moral absolutes you should be the one arguing that every action can be morally justified. If you agree that moral absolutes do exist it means we are in agreement.

Originally posted by FMF
I wrote three long posts on what I think morality is. It's as if you didn't read them.

From your perspective, morality is determined by
1. society
2. self OR
3. a combination of 1 and 2.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
From your perspective, morality is determined by
1. society
2. self OR
3. a combination of 1 and 2.

I have already explained my take on morality and the sources of our moral sensibilities repeatedly. Take a look at the "Hitler" thread.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I believe exterminating a race for no reason is always wrong.

What reason, to your way of thinking, could make exterminating a race not wrong?

Your mention of the notion of there being a "reason" or there being "no reason" in this case or that case seems to be you conceding that there is a subjective element, room for interpretation, the need for a judgement call etc.

Originally posted by FMF
What reason, to your way of thinking, could make exterminating a race not wrong?

Your mention of the notion of there being a "reason" or there being "no reason" in this case or that case seems to be you conceding that there is a subjective element, room for interpretation, the need for a judgement call etc.

The only reason would be if God in his infinite wisdom decided it should be done. I personally would not be able to make that decision. Now from your perspective of no moral absolutes, it's never always wrong anyway so why do you care?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The only reason would be if God in his infinite wisdom decided it should be done.

Well if that's the moral compass you're peddling, then good luck with it.

The Hebrews carried out a genocide and then later wrote an account of it in which they claimed some god figure they just so happened to believe in had ordered them to do it.

Bingo. You have "the only reason" you apparently need.

Originally posted by FMF

You have downplayed the holocaust; you have justified genocide; you have said the morality of killing people "depends on the situation"; you have said you would avoid lying "if possible". I find your "objectivity" unimpressive and not demonstrated. But if it gives you a sense of purpose in life, keeps you on the straight and narrow, and helps you to come to terms with the inevitability of death, then good for you.

BUMP

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Now from your perspective of no moral absolutes, it's never always wrong anyway so why do you care?

From my perspective I cannot imagine genocide ever being justified. On the other hand, you can. For all your pretentious waffle about "moral absolutes", it is you who is standing on the wrong side of the gap between us on the right or wrong genocide.

Originally posted by FMF
Well if that's the moral compass you're peddling, then good luck with it.

The Hebrews carried out a genocide and then later wrote an account of it in which they claimed some god figure they just so happened to believe in had ordered them to do it.

Bingo. You have "the only reason" you apparently need.

If God does in fact exist and did in fact command them, why would it be wrong from your perspective of no moral absolutes?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]You have downplayed the holocaust; you have justified genocide; you have said the morality of killing people "depends on the situation"; you have said you would avoid lying "if possible". I find your "objectivity" unimpressive and not demonstrated. But if it gives you a sense of purpose in life, keeps you on the straight and narrow, and helps you to come to terms with the inevitability of death, then good for you.

BUMP[/b]

Why are you putting a BUMP to something that has no question?

Originally posted by FMF
You have downplayed the holocaust; you have justified genocide; you have said the morality of killing people "depends on the situation"; you have said you would avoid lying "if possible". I find your "objectivity" unimpressive and not demonstrated. But if it gives you a sense of purpose in life, keeps you on the straight and narrow, and helps you to come to terms with the inevitability of death, then good for you.

You say there are no moral absolutes yet you cannot think of any situation where a genocide or rape would be justified. You need to rethink your position on the existence of moral absolutes.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If God does in fact exist and did in fact command them, why would it be wrong from your perspective of no moral absolutes?

Well I am not superstitious, while you are. I have absolutely no reason on earth to believe that a "god" ordered the Hebrews to carry out a genocide. So it's a rather ludicrous hypothetical.

So, instead, because this god figure is NOT hypothetical to you, why don't you - as a believer in a god who you adamantly believe does not need to demonstrate or comply with any of the moral standards that human beings have generated for themselves - answer this modified version of your question: If the God [that you say does in fact exist] commanded you to rape non-Christian women ~ or commanded his supposed followers to rape non-Jewish women at some point in the history of the Hebrews ~ would it be morally justifiable from your perspective?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You say there are no moral absolutes yet you cannot think of any situation where a genocide or rape would be justified. You need to rethink your position on the existence of moral absolutes.

As long as you define "moral absolutes" as coming from some sort of supernatural being that you just so happen to believe in, I do not have to rethink my position at all. You don't seem to have taken in or properly comprehended anything I've said these past few weeks.