Claiming Moral Authority

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Forwarding this post to my son who just lost his index, middle and ring fingers on his dominant hand three weeks ago in a workplace accident and who is psychologically struggling with the loss (not to mention the physical pain).

Cool anecdote![/quote]

Glad I could help!

i saw that thread, and well, I am not good at finding the right thing to say in those situations.

My Uncle cut off two fingers and half a thumb on a table saw. He is a badass bass player and a plumber… He said it ended up not so bad because the girls were real sympathetic and would fall for the “I need to exercise my hand by squeezing” line and would be all like: “you can use my boobs”.

Your boy should be good to go once he learns how to shoot with a pinky, or lefty.

122

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

According to the Gregorian Calendar (the one we have used since Pope Gregory the Great formulated it and changed from the Julian Calendar), Sunday is the seventh day of the week. [/quote]

Sorry to disagree BC but the Gregorian calendar was adopted to correct an 11 minute per year imprecision in the Julian calendar and to reduce the number of leap years from 100 per 400 years to 97 per 400 years. It had no effect on the days of the week. That’s why most calendars to this day show Saturday as the last day of the week and Sunday as the first day of the week.

124

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Not a bad point. I’m assuming you’re talking about people in a vegetative state, potentially forever, correct? Basically anybody else, like someone getting knocked out, or blacking out, it’s obvious that they’ll generally recover and regain consciousness. Otherwise, it’d be moral to kill people while they’re sleeping.

Before we go on, is that a correct assumption?[/quote]

I mean both.

If potential for future consciousness is what we are looking at, why doesn’t a fetus count?[/quote]

If I subscribed to the consciousness thing, I would say a fetus doesn’t count because it never HAS experienced consciousness in the first place, whereas an unconscious person is just temporarily out of order. [/quote]

But it will.[/quote]

Of course. But as of yet, it has never experienced conscious thought, pain, happiness, etc. One could make the case for those types of experiences defining someone as a person, as human. In which case, it hasn’t attained personhood yet.

Again, this isn’t my belief. I just think it could have SOME merit, depending on how one looks at it.

125

[quote]pat wrote:

Actually, the Sabbath used to move around depending on the beginning and ending of religious holidays since the high days of those holidays were also considered as Sabbath, marking 6 days after that the next Sabbath, so it wasn’t always Saturday, but it moved around early on.

… [/quote]

???

Uhhh…I would like a reference for that.

126

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

According to the Gregorian Calendar (the one we have used since Pope Gregory the Great formulated it and changed from the Julian Calendar), Sunday is the seventh day of the week. [/quote]

Sorry to disagree BC but the Gregorian calendar was adopted to correct an 11 minute per year imprecision in the Julian calendar and to reduce the number of leap years from 100 per 400 years to 97 per 400 years. It had no effect on the days of the week. That’s why most calendars to this day show Saturday as the last day of the week and Sunday as the first day of the week.[/quote]

Never said it changed the seventh day, just putting historical context in there. My calendars start on Monday and end on Sunday. As the international standard is ISO 8601 which has Monday as the first day of the week and Sunday as the seventh. Just a foreign concept that Sunday is the first day of the week.

Eitherway, Christendom celebrates Sabbath on Sunday for more than one reason, like because Jesus’ resurrection is on that day.

127

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Eitherway, Christendom celebrates Sabbath on Sunday for more than one reason, like because Jesus’ resurrection is on that day. [/quote]

I agree with you that is the reason the Sabbath is considered Sunday for that reason amongst most Christians demonimations. Enough said.

128

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
See I have given my nemesis the opportunity to critique me and I will do it for you . Time does not allow me to waste time every day only some :slight_smile: life gets too hectic to follow these threads so adios for now [/quote]

(Waves to Pitski as he rides away in the short bus)
[/quote]

Is that the best you got ? it is almost pathetic

129

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I also have one of you as well but I must admit it is not as well founded :)[/quote]

One of me what? A thread?

[quote] I also would love to hear your critique of me ?
[/quote]

I think you are a center/right person in conviction and life style. Hard working, honest, want the government to leave you alone, and couldn’t care less what others are doing as long as it isn’t hurting you or yours. You want them to stop pissing away your money and leave you the hell alone…

But the thought of looking into the conservative narrative seriously frightens you. You find comfort in the lefty narrative painted in the news media, television and hollywood. You don’t like what you see as the social positions of conservatives, and the whole “religion” thing irks you.

You aren’t a progressive, don’t particularly care for progressives, but are frightened by what you perceive would happen under conservative leadership. So you err on the side of the progressives even though I think you are more like the Democrats of my youth, grounded in reality and still American.

And then you come on here and get a kick out of the reaction to your posts, so you ride the progressive horse pretty hard.

How’d I do?[/quote]

I don’t know , so so :slight_smile: I think we need to change things to make them better so I would say I am in favor of progress. I do not have time to watch much TV I would say other than HBO, Show time less than 5 hour a week.

I have no fear of so called conservative ideas , I have lived them most of my life . I lived through the reign of the so called conservatives Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan ,Ford, Bush and Bush
I also live in AZ, By any standard it is a so called conservative state .

IMO you are a little like Zeb , you feel the need to discount some one that does not agree with you , example FEAR CONFUSE ect. I assume it bolsters your heir of superiority .

I think you are probably a decent Accountant and love to drag the discussion in to that realm so you can be victorious .

130

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Pitt,

I would argue that you chose the wrong word to title this thread. You chose “claiming” when I would suggest “exuding.” Anyone can claim anything, but the way they present themselves is more telling of what they are claiming. I have found the most powerful people to be the most humble. The shit talkers are the last to swing…know what I mean ?[/quote]

I disagree, that would be saying they are entitled and IMO this is a forum of a bunch of average intellected people that like to pretend otherwise

131

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Actually, the Sabbath used to move around depending on the beginning and ending of religious holidays since the high days of those holidays were also considered as Sabbath, marking 6 days after that the next Sabbath, so it wasn’t always Saturday, but it moved around early on.

… [/quote]

???

Uhhh…I would like a reference for that.
[/quote]

Here is a reference:

I got the information from my study bible which I obviously cannot post a link to since it’s a book. But here is a similar description, in that it was a numerical delineation and not a specified day of the week in old Judaism. Since various feast days had Sabbaths and they could not conflict, it would move around. Keep in mind the Hebrew calender was way different than what we are used to.

132

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I usually stay out of these, but I have to side with Pat on this one. It is, in fact, spelled out for us in detail.

Still, one could ask; What is the basis for morality, the principles at the very core of it? After all, God doesn’t make up rules without reason.

Is it love vs. hate? Generosity vs. selfishness? Indifference vs. passion? All of the above?

If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]

the mere definition of the word Moral is debatable IMO
[/quote]
How so?

Just to make sure we’re on the same page, here; We are talking about the concept of right and wrong as it pertains to human behavior, right?

Or are you really debating the concept of ‘right’?

[/quote]

Are morals stories or the summation of a story or are they the concept of right and wrong?

I have my concept of right and wrong and I Govern my life accordingly. I should have no right to thrust my concepts on you nor should any one have that right to thrust their concepts of right and wrong on me (unless I am harming some one else)
[/quote]

And there the problem lies. I just described how your concept of it does not matter. If your concept of right includes something that is immoral, then it’s still immoral whether you think it’s right or not. You are not the master of morality, your own or anybody elses. It is what it is, and you cannot change it by a sheer act of will.[/quote]

Please prove that

133

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Some people simply have too much ego.

Some peole have a distinct lack of empathy.

Some people are quite logically adroit, though, they lack the neccessary imagination to really see anyting from another person’s POV.

Some people ignore the obvious fact >>> value gap in ethical debates.

Some people are stifed by their own inarticulacy & or they use a very closed system of language to express moral/ethical opinions/possibilities. Binary analysis, this or that, right OR wrong reasoning etc…no middle ground etc.

You’ll get all the above & much more in pretty much any PWI type forum…sad really. [/quote]

HEAR HEAR :slight_smile:

134

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I usually stay out of these, but I have to side with Pat on this one. It is, in fact, spelled out for us in detail.

Still, one could ask; What is the basis for morality, the principles at the very core of it? After all, God doesn’t make up rules without reason.

Is it love vs. hate? Generosity vs. selfishness? Indifference vs. passion? All of the above?

If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]

the mere definition of the word Moral is debatable IMO
[/quote]
How so?

Just to make sure we’re on the same page, here; We are talking about the concept of right and wrong as it pertains to human behavior, right?

Or are you really debating the concept of ‘right’?

[/quote]

Are morals stories or the summation of a story or are they the concept of right and wrong?

I have my concept of right and wrong and I Govern my life accordingly. I should have no right to thrust my concepts on you nor should any one have that right to thrust their concepts of right and wrong on me (unless I am harming some one else)
[/quote]

And there the problem lies. I just described how your concept of it does not matter. If your concept of right includes something that is immoral, then it’s still immoral whether you think it’s right or not. You are not the master of morality, your own or anybody elses. It is what it is, and you cannot change it by a sheer act of will.[/quote]

Please prove that
[/quote]

I did on page 3 where I answered your last ‘prove it’ with:

“Simple, that which is evil is evil despite whether one thinks it is or not. For instance, is it ever moral to rape a child?
When an there is an act that causes grievous harm from a sentient being to or on another sentient being, that act is inherently evil. Even if society at large condones the evil action, the action is still evil. I choose to focus on the evil aspect because it’s easier to agree on examples.
What morality is, is inexpressible in language but actions demonstrate various aspects of morality.
Relative morality, which is what you are expressing breaks down in reality. Something being acceptable to one or more person does not define that act as moral. Like in the slavery example, it was always wrong and always immoral, but at certain points in history it was accepted. That didn’t do much for the slaves, they still suffered the evils of slavery. It’s wrong to enslave another, it’s wrong to denigrate and devalue a person. But they were and it was accepted. When people pointed out the truth, they were scoffed at, then they were opposed violently, then slavery being evil was accepted as always being self evident.
Because this fact was true outside the minds of people, it’s proof that this moral tenant and therefore morality exists independently of the human mind.”

Since we’re into proving things, prove morality is relative…
Prove that rape, murder, slavery, etc. could be considered ‘moral’ based on personal concepts of morality.
The problem with relative morality is that, at least in theory, you have to prove then, the most abominable acts could be considered moral. So you prove it.

135

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Not a bad point. I’m assuming you’re talking about people in a vegetative state, potentially forever, correct? Basically anybody else, like someone getting knocked out, or blacking out, it’s obvious that they’ll generally recover and regain consciousness. Otherwise, it’d be moral to kill people while they’re sleeping.

Before we go on, is that a correct assumption?[/quote]

I mean both.

If potential for future consciousness is what we are looking at, why doesn’t a fetus count?[/quote]

If I subscribed to the consciousness thing, I would say a fetus doesn’t count because it never HAS experienced consciousness in the first place, whereas an unconscious person is just temporarily out of order. [/quote]

But it will.[/quote]

Of course. But as of yet, it has never experienced conscious thought, pain, happiness, etc. One could make the case for those types of experiences defining someone as a person, as human. In which case, it hasn’t attained personhood yet.

Again, this isn’t my belief. I just think it could have SOME merit, depending on how one looks at it. [/quote]

So, a born living baby in a coma, not a human. Nice.

So this is where you are with your definition at this point:
A biological living human with the potential for consciousness, having had it before, but not necessarily having it now just the potential for it in the future while not really being able to define consciousness in the first place.

Yeah, that’s not a lousy convoluted excuse to justify the killing of what everyone knows is a living human baby at all…

136

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Actually, the Sabbath used to move around depending on the beginning and ending of religious holidays since the high days of those holidays were also considered as Sabbath, marking 6 days after that the next Sabbath, so it wasn’t always Saturday, but it moved around early on.

… [/quote]

???

Uhhh…I would like a reference for that.
[/quote]

Here is a reference:

I got the information from my study bible which I obviously cannot post a link to since it’s a book. But here is a similar description, in that it was a numerical delineation and not a specified day of the week in old Judaism. Since various feast days had Sabbaths and they could not conflict, it would move around. Keep in mind the Hebrew calender was way different than what we are used to. [/quote]

Thanks, respectfully, but…

When one reads something that is so far-removed from anything else in common experience, one must gape in amazement for a moment.
This idea, and its reference, is nonsense.
I may not know everything, but I have never encountered this notion before. Nowhere else in post-exilic literature, Torah, Talmud, Josephus, Rashi, Sforno, etc, etc, is it intimated that the weekly Sabbaths moved about in the calendar. To the contrary, the Sabbath has primacy: the practices on some feast days are altered out of respect for a fixed and unmoving weekly Sabbath, a practice codified since the early Second Temple days at the very latest.
The Hebrew-Babylonian calendar system has been in continuous use for over 2500 years–without a major alteration–so it is not a question of our unfamiliarity with it.

Instead, I suggest instead that the reference confuses the meaning of sbt with the Sabbath. If the OT references say, “It will be a sabbath for you,” it indicates that the holiday is one which demands a cessation from labor and the typical daily routine. In no way does it imply that one starts a recount to the next Sabbath.

/lecture

137

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I usually stay out of these, but I have to side with Pat on this one. It is, in fact, spelled out for us in detail.

Still, one could ask; What is the basis for morality, the principles at the very core of it? After all, God doesn’t make up rules without reason.

Is it love vs. hate? Generosity vs. selfishness? Indifference vs. passion? All of the above?

If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]

the mere definition of the word Moral is debatable IMO
[/quote]
How so?

Just to make sure we’re on the same page, here; We are talking about the concept of right and wrong as it pertains to human behavior, right?

Or are you really debating the concept of ‘right’?

[/quote]

Are morals stories or the summation of a story or are they the concept of right and wrong?

I have my concept of right and wrong and I Govern my life accordingly. I should have no right to thrust my concepts on you nor should any one have that right to thrust their concepts of right and wrong on me (unless I am harming some one else)
[/quote]

And there the problem lies. I just described how your concept of it does not matter. If your concept of right includes something that is immoral, then it’s still immoral whether you think it’s right or not. You are not the master of morality, your own or anybody elses. It is what it is, and you cannot change it by a sheer act of will.[/quote]

Please prove that
[/quote]

I did on page 3 where I answered your last ‘prove it’ with:

“Simple, that which is evil is evil despite whether one thinks it is or not. For instance, is it ever moral to rape a child?
When an there is an act that causes grievous harm from a sentient being to or on another sentient being, that act is inherently evil. Even if society at large condones the evil action, the action is still evil. I choose to focus on the evil aspect because it’s easier to agree on examples.
What morality is, is inexpressible in language but actions demonstrate various aspects of morality.
Relative morality, which is what you are expressing breaks down in reality. Something being acceptable to one or more person does not define that act as moral. Like in the slavery example, it was always wrong and always immoral, but at certain points in history it was accepted. That didn’t do much for the slaves, they still suffered the evils of slavery. It’s wrong to enslave another, it’s wrong to denigrate and devalue a person. But they were and it was accepted. When people pointed out the truth, they were scoffed at, then they were opposed violently, then slavery being evil was accepted as always being self evident.
Because this fact was true outside the minds of people, it’s proof that this moral tenant and therefore morality exists independently of the human mind.”

Since we’re into proving things, prove morality is relative…
Prove that rape, murder, slavery, etc. could be considered ‘moral’ based on personal concepts of morality.
The problem with relative morality is that, at least in theory, you have to prove then, the most abominable acts could be considered moral. So you prove it. [/quote]

This is not proof of any thing this is mere opinion. I am not stating any thing about rape, murder, slavery, etc.

I will ask you a few questions When the state executes someone in that immoral ? We put people in Prison is that slavery ?

In my opinion there is going to be no proof of your opinion because it is simply an opinion that you and a minority share

138

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Not a bad point. I’m assuming you’re talking about people in a vegetative state, potentially forever, correct? Basically anybody else, like someone getting knocked out, or blacking out, it’s obvious that they’ll generally recover and regain consciousness. Otherwise, it’d be moral to kill people while they’re sleeping.

Before we go on, is that a correct assumption?[/quote]

I mean both.

If potential for future consciousness is what we are looking at, why doesn’t a fetus count?[/quote]

If I subscribed to the consciousness thing, I would say a fetus doesn’t count because it never HAS experienced consciousness in the first place, whereas an unconscious person is just temporarily out of order. [/quote]

But it will.[/quote]

Of course. But as of yet, it has never experienced conscious thought, pain, happiness, etc. One could make the case for those types of experiences defining someone as a person, as human. In which case, it hasn’t attained personhood yet.

Again, this isn’t my belief. I just think it could have SOME merit, depending on how one looks at it. [/quote]

So, a born living baby in a coma, not a human. Nice.

So this is where you are with your definition at this point:
A biological living human with the potential for consciousness, having had it before, but not necessarily having it now just the potential for it in the future while not really being able to define consciousness in the first place.

Yeah, that’s not a lousy convoluted excuse to justify the killing of what everyone knows is a living human baby at all…[/quote]

Easy there, that’s not what I believe. I think there may be some way for a person to define humanity along those lines and satisfy themselves…as I’ve said, I don’t subscribe to that line of thought though, at least partially due to just those problems you’ve pointed out. Having said that, difficulty defining something doesn’t mean it is a wrong definition inherently.

At the pittbull/pat/beans morality discussion, without any sort of higher authority, I think it’s safe to say there ARE no concrete timeless morals, or absolutes. Just feelings. I feel this is right, but he feels it is wrong.

139

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I usually stay out of these, but I have to side with Pat on this one. It is, in fact, spelled out for us in detail.

Still, one could ask; What is the basis for morality, the principles at the very core of it? After all, God doesn’t make up rules without reason.

Is it love vs. hate? Generosity vs. selfishness? Indifference vs. passion? All of the above?

If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]

the mere definition of the word Moral is debatable IMO
[/quote]
How so?

Just to make sure we’re on the same page, here; We are talking about the concept of right and wrong as it pertains to human behavior, right?

Or are you really debating the concept of ‘right’?

[/quote]

Are morals stories or the summation of a story or are they the concept of right and wrong?

I have my concept of right and wrong and I Govern my life accordingly. I should have no right to thrust my concepts on you nor should any one have that right to thrust their concepts of right and wrong on me (unless I am harming some one else)
[/quote]

And there the problem lies. I just described how your concept of it does not matter. If your concept of right includes something that is immoral, then it’s still immoral whether you think it’s right or not. You are not the master of morality, your own or anybody elses. It is what it is, and you cannot change it by a sheer act of will.[/quote]

Please prove that
[/quote]

I did on page 3 where I answered your last ‘prove it’ with:

“Simple, that which is evil is evil despite whether one thinks it is or not. For instance, is it ever moral to rape a child?
When an there is an act that causes grievous harm from a sentient being to or on another sentient being, that act is inherently evil. Even if society at large condones the evil action, the action is still evil. I choose to focus on the evil aspect because it’s easier to agree on examples.
What morality is, is inexpressible in language but actions demonstrate various aspects of morality.
Relative morality, which is what you are expressing breaks down in reality. Something being acceptable to one or more person does not define that act as moral. Like in the slavery example, it was always wrong and always immoral, but at certain points in history it was accepted. That didn’t do much for the slaves, they still suffered the evils of slavery. It’s wrong to enslave another, it’s wrong to denigrate and devalue a person. But they were and it was accepted. When people pointed out the truth, they were scoffed at, then they were opposed violently, then slavery being evil was accepted as always being self evident.
Because this fact was true outside the minds of people, it’s proof that this moral tenant and therefore morality exists independently of the human mind.”

Since we’re into proving things, prove morality is relative…
Prove that rape, murder, slavery, etc. could be considered ‘moral’ based on personal concepts of morality.
The problem with relative morality is that, at least in theory, you have to prove then, the most abominable acts could be considered moral. So you prove it. [/quote]

This is not proof of any thing this is mere opinion. I am not stating any thing about rape, murder, slavery, etc.

I will ask you a few questions When the state executes someone in that immoral ? We put people in Prison is that slavery ?

In my opinion there is going to be no proof of your opinion because it is simply an opinion that you and a minority share[/quote]

Why won’t you state anything about rape, murder, or slavery? Serious question. Do you feel they are too difficult or impossible to prove as wrong, or is it something else?

Also, by virtually any definition of slavery, prison does not fit that bill. Slavery is not a punishment, that would be servitude. Like in the case of an indentured servant, where one works off his debt. That is CLOSER to being in prison than slavery.

140

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I usually stay out of these, but I have to side with Pat on this one. It is, in fact, spelled out for us in detail.

Still, one could ask; What is the basis for morality, the principles at the very core of it? After all, God doesn’t make up rules without reason.

Is it love vs. hate? Generosity vs. selfishness? Indifference vs. passion? All of the above?

If it weren’t for God telling us, would we be capable of determining morality for ourselves?[/quote]

the mere definition of the word Moral is debatable IMO
[/quote]
How so?

Just to make sure we’re on the same page, here; We are talking about the concept of right and wrong as it pertains to human behavior, right?

Or are you really debating the concept of ‘right’?

[/quote]

Are morals stories or the summation of a story or are they the concept of right and wrong?

I have my concept of right and wrong and I Govern my life accordingly. I should have no right to thrust my concepts on you nor should any one have that right to thrust their concepts of right and wrong on me (unless I am harming some one else)
[/quote]

And there the problem lies. I just described how your concept of it does not matter. If your concept of right includes something that is immoral, then it’s still immoral whether you think it’s right or not. You are not the master of morality, your own or anybody elses. It is what it is, and you cannot change it by a sheer act of will.[/quote]

Please prove that
[/quote]

I did on page 3 where I answered your last ‘prove it’ with:

“Simple, that which is evil is evil despite whether one thinks it is or not. For instance, is it ever moral to rape a child?
When an there is an act that causes grievous harm from a sentient being to or on another sentient being, that act is inherently evil. Even if society at large condones the evil action, the action is still evil. I choose to focus on the evil aspect because it’s easier to agree on examples.
What morality is, is inexpressible in language but actions demonstrate various aspects of morality.
Relative morality, which is what you are expressing breaks down in reality. Something being acceptable to one or more person does not define that act as moral. Like in the slavery example, it was always wrong and always immoral, but at certain points in history it was accepted. That didn’t do much for the slaves, they still suffered the evils of slavery. It’s wrong to enslave another, it’s wrong to denigrate and devalue a person. But they were and it was accepted. When people pointed out the truth, they were scoffed at, then they were opposed violently, then slavery being evil was accepted as always being self evident.
Because this fact was true outside the minds of people, it’s proof that this moral tenant and therefore morality exists independently of the human mind.”

Since we’re into proving things, prove morality is relative…
Prove that rape, murder, slavery, etc. could be considered ‘moral’ based on personal concepts of morality.
The problem with relative morality is that, at least in theory, you have to prove then, the most abominable acts could be considered moral. So you prove it. [/quote]

This is not proof of any thing this is mere opinion. I am not stating any thing about rape, murder, slavery, etc.

I will ask you a few questions When the state executes someone in that immoral ? We put people in Prison is that slavery ?

In my opinion there is going to be no proof of your opinion because it is simply an opinion that you and a minority share[/quote]

Why won’t you state anything about rape, murder, or slavery? Serious question. Do you feel they are too difficult or impossible to prove as wrong, or is it something else?

Also, by virtually any definition of slavery, prison does not fit that bill. Slavery is not a punishment, that would be servitude. Like in the case of an indentured servant, where one works off his debt. That is CLOSER to being in prison than slavery. [/quote]

No I feel Rape, Murder and slavery are wrong. I am not sure what you want