[quote]ephrem wrote:
Objectively, I KNOW forcing women to gestate against their will is immoral.[/quote]
Could you share a few more of the absolute moral positions which spring forth from moral relativism?
Way to dodge the rest of that post sloth.
You are confused by my use of the word “know”?
You should “know” by now that I only speak for myself.
I think it’s immoral. That’s my position, but it’s not absolute.
Now for the rest of my other post sloth; will you get round to it?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Way to dodge the rest of that post sloth.
You are confused by my use of the word “know”?
You should “know” by now that I only speak for myself.
I think it’s immoral. That’s my position, but it’s not absolute.
Now for the rest of my other post sloth; will you get round to it?[/quote]
Why would I? It doesn’t matter what position, I take. You would have to know–being aware of ‘morals are personal’–that any position I take has the same moral weight as yours. Nothing I believe and do can, in reality, be any less moral than your personal morals.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’d really like to know why suddenly it was decided that slavery is immoral and should be abolished inspite of people’s acceptance of slavery for thousands of years.
Do you know?[/quote]
Yes, they concluded it offended God/The creator. The question is best asked of you. Since slavery needn’t have become immoral, so long as they could be aware that good and evil don’t actually exist. That all they needed to do was continue to hold slavery as a good, and it would be.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Way to dodge the rest of that post sloth.
You are confused by my use of the word “know”?
[/quote]
It is more accurate for you say that you believe, or feel. Not know. You do not KNOW that any act or view is immoral.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Way to dodge the rest of that post sloth.
You are confused by my use of the word “know”?
You should “know” by now that I only speak for myself.
I think it’s immoral. That’s my position, but it’s not absolute.
Now for the rest of my other post sloth; will you get round to it?[/quote]
Why would I? It doesn’t matter what position, I take. You would have to know–being aware of ‘morals are personal’–that any position I take has the same moral weight as yours. Nothing I believe and do can, in reality, be any less moral than your personal morals.[/quote]
So?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Way to dodge the rest of that post sloth.
You are confused by my use of the word “know”?
You should “know” by now that I only speak for myself.
I think it’s immoral. That’s my position, but it’s not absolute.
Now for the rest of my other post sloth; will you get round to it?[/quote]
Why would I? It doesn’t matter what position, I take. You would have to know–being aware of ‘morals are personal’–that any position I take has the same moral weight as yours. Nothing I believe and do can, in reality, be any less moral than your personal morals.[/quote]
So?
[/quote]
So, why are you concerned? Whoever wins, the world be just as moral/immoral.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Way to dodge the rest of that post sloth.
You are confused by my use of the word “know”?
[/quote]
It is more accurate for you say that you believe, or feel. Not know. You do not KNOW that any act or view is immoral.[/quote]
And, intellectually, since you KNOW that you can’t KNOW (ever) that acts are moral or immoral, you should feel rather foolish for ‘believing’ any act to be immoral.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’d really like to know why suddenly it was decided that slavery is immoral and should be abolished inspite of people’s acceptance of slavery for thousands of years.
Do you know?[/quote]
Yes, they concluded it offended God/The creator. The question is best asked of you. Since slavery needn’t have become immoral, so long as they could be aware that good and evil don’t actually exist. That all they needed to do was continue to hold slavery as a good, and it would be.[/quote]
God/The Creator himself didn’t have problems with slavery, so why would He be offended?
I don’t know why, sloth. A few articles I read weren’t very conclusive as to why they abolished slavery, but it could’ve been for various reasons.
I’m sure that, if slavery was still in effect today, we’d be less inclined to think it’s immoral.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Way to dodge the rest of that post sloth.
You are confused by my use of the word “know”?
[/quote]
It is more accurate for you say that you believe, or feel. Not know. You do not KNOW that any act or view is immoral.[/quote]
How do you KNOW that an act is moral or immoral?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
So?
[/quote]
So, why are you concerned? Whoever wins, the world be just as moral/immoral.[/quote]
Concerned about outlawing abortion you mean? I like and respect women, and I don’t think it’s fair on them.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
So?
[/quote]
So, why are you concerned? Whoever wins, the world be just as moral/immoral.[/quote]
Concerned about outlawing abortion you mean? I like and respect women, and I don’t think it’s fair on them.
[/quote]
But since it’s (outlawing) not immoral, and it saves innocent human lives, there is no REAL objection. After all, it’s not fair in my mind that innocent individual human lives are murdered in the womb, deliberately. So my position, in your worldview, can’t (in reality) be any less moral than your own. And this is of course assumes ‘fairness’ to be some moral virtue we’re obligated, in reality, to share
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Concerned about outlawing abortion you mean? I like and respect women, and I don’t think it’s fair on them.
[/quote]
But since it’s (outlawing) not immoral, and it saves innocent human lives, there is no REAL objection. After all, it’s not fair in my mind that innocent individual human lives are murdered in the womb, deliberately. So my position, in your worldview, can’t (in reality) be any less moral than your own. And this is of course assumes ‘fairness’ to be some moral virtue we’re obligated, in reality, to share[/quote]
In your mind there’s no REAL objection, but since that’s just your opinion my reasons for wanting to keep abortion available [pro-choice] to women aren’t invalidated.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Concerned about outlawing abortion you mean? I like and respect women, and I don’t think it’s fair on them.
[/quote]
But since it’s (outlawing) not immoral, and it saves innocent human lives, there is no REAL objection. After all, it’s not fair in my mind that innocent individual human lives are murdered in the womb, deliberately. So my position, in your worldview, can’t (in reality) be any less moral than your own. And this is of course assumes ‘fairness’ to be some moral virtue we’re obligated, in reality, to share[/quote]
In your mind there’s no REAL objection, but since that’s just your opinion my reasons for wanting to keep abortion available [pro-choice] to women aren’t invalidated.[/quote]
However, in your mind, there is no REAL moral difference. In your mind, both have the same defining feature, an opinion. So, despite how you FEEL, you KNOW intellectually that my position is no less moral than your own.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
In your mind there’s no REAL objection, but since that’s just your opinion my reasons for wanting to keep abortion available [pro-choice] to women aren’t invalidated.[/quote]
However, in your mind, there is no REAL moral difference. In your mind, both have the same defining feature, an opinion. So, despite how you FEEL, you KNOW intellectually that my position is no less moral than your own.
[/quote]
And guess what, sloth? THAT DOESN’T MATTER ONE BIT!
Ha!
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
In your mind there’s no REAL objection, but since that’s just your opinion my reasons for wanting to keep abortion available [pro-choice] to women aren’t invalidated.[/quote]
However, in your mind, there is no REAL moral difference. In your mind, both have the same defining feature, an opinion. So, despite how you FEEL, you KNOW intellectually that my position is no less moral than your own.
[/quote]
And guess what, sloth? THAT DOESN’T MATTER ONE BIT!
Ha!
[/quote]
So it’s arbitrary? Ok.
Now you’re catching on.
Finally.
Sheesh.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Now you’re catching on.
Finally.
Sheesh.[/quote]
Then why should we take you seriously, if you don’t even take yourself seriously?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Yes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that an equal action is seen in a different light by you because you’ve assigned to that action a different meaning, and because of that different meaning the action becomes a specific moral entity.
That is the essence of relativity.
I don’t think so, no.
It does beg the question I posed earlier: are the people who engage in these actions sick?
They have their own justification for doing these things, and from their perspective it’s not immoral.
Are they sick? And if they are, is morality therefore a function of a healthy brain/mind?[/quote]
But again situational ‘relativity’ is not the position you took earlier. Your trying to slippery slope me into accepting moral relativity because situations changed the circumstances around actions. That’s not what I or anybody else is arguing against. We’re arguing against morality being based on feeling or social acceptance.
I think you’d find it hard pressed to find the individuals who are perpetuation the actions above as not in control of their actions or truly in absence of right and wrong. Are they sick, yeah, are they culpable, yeah. Being nasty doesn’t excuse you from your behavior.[/quote]
Situational moral relativity is also/the same as socially evolved morality. Both are dependent on context to be either right or wrong [from the perspective of the doer].
[/quote]
No they are not and never have been. Situations are part of the dictate, always have been. There is transitional logic that would support and if/ then scenario,ror social acceptance. Perspective is not pertinent to morality. Only an argument from ignorance could mittigate partial responsibility. Humans are built in with an intrinsic sense that an action that causes the suffering of someone else is wrong.
Actually I should have drilled you on it harder when the discussing the clear vile actions of the African militias mutilating, raping and brutalizing men, women in children. You admitted yourself there is no case in you could think of in which that were morally right. I really couldn’t conceive of a scenario where you could consider that right? You could make a hypothetical that killing a whole bunch of people to spare them from a potentially greater evil or worse fate, but the other actions are still senseless.
Now for you to make your argument. You have to take the situation as is, and conceive of a way it can be morally justified based on perceptions or ‘feeling’. Let’s take a real world situation from the Congo where on militia will come in to a town, kill the men rape the women and children and then kill them too, just because another warlord claimed jurisdiction over them. This scenario played out thousands of times to the tune of 2 million deaths. This is probably the most morally repugnant shit I have ever heard of. Can you find and social understand, acceptance, or personal feeling that makes that actual, real, just happened not to long ago scenario somehow not immoral? Keep in mind that an inability to morally justify these actions will prove, PROVE, that morality is not relative.
Even if you ‘think’ it’s ok, it’s still not.
[quote]
Take the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, for instance. Very clear morally, and from an absolute source so there shouldn’t be any doubt or exceptions, right?
But people who believe in that absolute source routinely make exceptions to the commandment by making it relative to a specific context; war, the death penalty or self-defense.
If you want to argue that morality is absolute you must provide a source. If you can’t do that morality becomes relative by default.[/quote]
I’ll just defer to Kant’s justifications, for that. You first have to show me that even the most horrendous actions are justifiable be feeling, emotion, society, and/ or law. Because for morality to be relative to such things even the most horrendous acts have to be justifiable.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
In your mind there’s no REAL objection, but since that’s just your opinion my reasons for wanting to keep abortion available [pro-choice] to women aren’t invalidated.[/quote]
However, in your mind, there is no REAL moral difference. In your mind, both have the same defining feature, an opinion. So, despite how you FEEL, you KNOW intellectually that my position is no less moral than your own.
[/quote]
And guess what, sloth? THAT DOESN’T MATTER ONE BIT!
Ha!
[/quote]
So it’s arbitrary? Ok.
[/quote]
No it’s not. Once you understand that the life you take is human, your forced to admit taking it’s life its wrong. You alreay agree that have the remote possibility of cognition is the point in which killing the organism is wrong.