it is actually.I disagree, but that doesn't mean that it's always easy to discern what is objectively moral.
Since I framed my post clearly in the context of opinion, consensus, and cultural norms it obviously only applies to humans without further elaboration or explanation required from me.
So far, no one has.that doesn't mean that it's always easy to discern what is objectively moral.
I answered it 48 times. You're just a dope.Your claim, based on the title of this thread, is that there is no such thing as objective morality. I asked of raping a 5 year old was objectively immoral.
So far, you have not answered that question.
I ANSWERED THAT "IMMORAL" AND "OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL" MEAN THE SAME THING. YOU ARE JUST STUPID.Your claim, based on the title of this thread, is that there is no such thing as objective morality. I asked of raping a 5 year old was objectively immoral.
So far, you have not answered that question.
No, don't agree.Just so long as we all agree that words like "objective" and "universal" have ZERO Meaning in your world. They are whatever you want them to mean in whatever instance you say them.
They aren't the same thing because morality varies widely across the world. That's why YOU included objective in the title.I ANSWERED THAT "IMMORAL" AND "OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL" MEAN THE SAME THING. YOU ARE JUST STUPID.
You will never explain what the word "objective" means. You cannot.They aren't the same thing because morality varies widely across the world. That's why YOU included objective in the title.![]()
Stop moving the goal post.You will never explain what the word "objective" means. You cannot.
I have no idea what you are talking about.Stop moving the goal post.
You have responded to my question, you have not answered the question.
The reasons for that are obvious.
You do. Your title didn't say "Why there is no such thing as morality."I have no idea what you are talking about.
Boring. Not responding again.You do. Your title didn't say "Why there is no such thing as morality."
It said "Why there is no such thing as objective morality."
Then, when I asked you a question, you refused to answer.
No, don't agree.
A concept of objective morality was crystal clear to Martin Luther King when he wrote the letter from a Birmingham jail. It's unfortunate that what was crystal clear to Dr. King is totally unfathomable to you.If you claim to. Guess I'll have to take your word for it as opposed to your actual posts.
A concept of objective morality was crystal clear to Martin Luther King
when he wrote the letter from a Birmingham jail. It's unfortunate that what was crystal clear to Dr. King is totally unfathomable to you.
At least you use the right word this time. this time.Boring. Not responding again.
How are you so sure?So far, no one has.I disagree, but that doesn't mean that it's always easy to discern what is objectively moral.
The guilt shame, or moral outrage felt by mentally healthy adults is your conscience telling you there is an absolute standard of right and wrong, independent of laws, opinions, consensus. Murder, cheating, lying, rape, genocide, theft are examples.
Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail, and the Nuremburg trials both invoked objective morality in a way that is crystal clear and self evident to every healthy sentient adult.
So, you're a Christian.How are you so sure?
There's another thing here though, which you did bring up in your opening post and that is, how are we defining morality to begin with. I think the best way is to define what is moral as what is efficient, keeping in mind that there is a priority list in terms of what needs to be efficient. I'd say that the most important thing in terms of efficiency optimization would be love.