The depravity of man

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The point you seem to be missing dear sir is that if there is no objective moral truth, it means that anything goes. Without some sort of non-relative standard to appeal to, you have no basis for critical moral appraisals of your own culture’s conventions, or for judging one societies morals to be better than another apart from your personal opinions and preferences of course.

The point you seem to be missing dear sir is that if there is no objective moral truth, it means that anything goes.

No it doesn't. If it is contrary to the commonly held consensus, it is morally wrong. Why can't you grasp this simple fact?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
[b]The point you seem to be missing dear sir is that if there is no objective moral truth, it means that anything goes.

No it doesn't. If it is contrary to the commonly held consensus, it is morally wrong. Why can't you grasp this simple fact?[/b]

A consensus doesn't establish truth. Moral truth exists regardless of what people may agree. This means that even if Hitler and the Nazis agreed to exterminate the Jews it was still wrong.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
A consensus doesn't establish truth. Moral truth exists regardless of what people may agree. This means that even if Hitler and the Nazis agreed to exterminate the Jews it was still wrong.

This does not constitute an argument, it is simply a statement of your beliefs.

edit: Beliefs which are clearly contrary to the true nature of human morality, as you have already noticed but not yet apparently, understood.

further edit: Furthermore, as I have tried to help you realise, the vast majority of those you refer to with the blanket term 'nazis' not only did not agree to exterminate the Jews but were shocked and horrified when they eventually found out the nature and processes involved in the 'Final Solution'.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
[b]The point you seem to be missing dear sir is that if there is no objective moral truth, it means that anything goes.

No it doesn't. If it is contrary to the commonly held consensus, it is morally wrong. Why can't you grasp this simple fact?[/b]

This does not constitute an argument, it is simply a statement of your beliefs. What makes the commonly held consensus of one society better than the commonly held consensus of another society?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
This does not constitute an argument, it is simply a statement of your beliefs. What makes the commonly held consensus of one society better than the commonly held consensus of another society?

As you are well aware, my argument is clearly stated prior to the post which you have weakly attempted to parody.

There are times when it may not be possible to choose which of two conflicting moral positions is the 'right' choice. I am sure you are aware of issues which divide even faithful christians such as you would have us believe you are.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
As you are well aware, my argument is clearly stated prior to the post which you have weakly attempted to parody.

There are times when it may not be possible to choose which of two conflicting moral positions is the 'right' choice. I am sure you are aware of issues which divide even faithful christians such as you would have us believe you are.

So if the majority decide something is wrong then it is wrong for them and if years later the majority decide the same action is right then it will be right for them? Correct?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So if the majority decide something is wrong then it is wrong for them and if years later the majority decide the same action is right then it will be right for them? Correct?

There is something missing in your understanding of a moral consensus. One does not simply 'decide' that something is right or wrong. The act and the consequences thereof are considered with reason. Don't you read anything that is posted by people who disagree with your position?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So if the majority decide something is wrong then it is wrong for them and if years later the majority decide the same action is right then it will be right for them? Correct?

Several people have explained subjective morality to you, in several threads. Yet you appear to be still asking the same basic questions and seeming to forget the information you have been given.....Why is that?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
There is something missing in your understanding of a moral consensus. One does not simply 'decide' that something is right or wrong. The act and the consequences thereof are considered with reason. Don't you read anything that is posted by people who disagree with your position?

If there are no objective morals it's just one opinion against another with no facts.

Originally posted by @stellspalfie
Several people have explained subjective morality to you, in several threads. Yet you appear to be still asking the same basic questions and seeming to forget the information you have been given.....Why is that?

Which information do you think I have forgotten? If morality is subjective it's just one opinion against another. So what makes one opinion any more or less valid than another opinion? It's like trying to argue that Coca Cola is 'better' than Pepsi. There is no 'correct' answer.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If there are no objective morals it's just one opinion against another with no facts.

As has been explained above, no, it isn't. The morality of any given thought, word or deed is subject to examination and argument.

The ridiculous nature of your pre-defined, god-given morality is evident in the example of the poverty-stricken parent stealing bread to feed his starving children. You are obliged to view this act as morally wrong, right?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Which information do you think I have forgotten? If morality is subjective it's just one opinion against another. So what makes one opinion any more or less valid than another opinion? It's like trying to argue that Coca Cola is 'better' than Pepsi. There is no 'correct' answer.

Morality is not a simple 'opinion'. Comparing the consideration of morality to a choice between one or other soda is fatuous and asinine.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
As has been explained above, no, it isn't. The morality of any given thought, word or deed is subject to examination and argument.

The ridiculous nature of your pre-defined, god-given morality is evident in the example of the poverty-stricken parent stealing bread to feed his starving children. You are obliged to view this act as morally wrong, right?

The morality of any given thought, word or deed is subject to examination and argument.

If you have no objective standard for right and wrong then it means the 'examination and arguments' would simply be based upon subjective opinions and not facts.

Proverbs 6:30

Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry...

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
Morality is not a simple 'opinion'. Comparing the consideration of morality to a choice between one or other soda is fatuous and asinine.

The fact that you are still denying is that there is no universally 'correct' answer to any moral question if morality is subjective. It's all a matter of opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]The morality of any given thought, word or deed is subject to examination and argument.

If you have no objective standard for right and wrong then it means the 'examination and arguments' would simply be based upon subjective opinions and not facts.

Proverbs 6:30

Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry...[/b]

Subjective opinions which are discussed, considered and weighed, and ultimately enshrined in law. Where is the reference for your god-given morality?