Ana the Ist
You obviously dont use your ability to assess things very well. People have the ability to deduct, calculate, assess, use logic, history, stats, data such as surveys asking what people think, reading people through things like body language and other non verbal clues, psychology, common sense ect to work out things. So its not mind reading. You only call it mind reading because you are not using these things or taking them into consideration. So when I say that those who think abortion is ok is becuase they believe the fetus is not a life well that is based on logic and stats and things like psychology. If they believed it was a life then they either couldn't do it as it equates to murder or they would be suffering a lot because of doing it. So it just makes sense and is the logical conclusion. Psychologists use this type of thinking all the time to work out how people think. There is nothing wrong with finding out what makes people tick, I do it all the time in my work.
It strange how you can immediately say its not bad and then divert any blame to Christians. This is part of the problem why we are continually going from one disaster to another. People are in denial. Those stats are bad when you begin to link in the associated problems that go with it. Its bad on a number of counts. Its bad whether you believe in abortion or not. Its just bad. The fact is that even women who lose a baby through a miscarriage have grief, guilt as though they have lost a child. Those are the facts in real life and not the opinions of people. What people say and how they react are two different things.
Trust subjective opinion to come up with a good reason to torture babies for fun. I cant think of any and God help us if we did. But lets say we did. What right have you got to tell that person that what they believe is wrong. Afterall its their right to have that view.
Yes human agreement has nothing to do with objective morals. It has to come from outside our own views and be independent of us. If torturing babies for pleasure is always wrong then who states it as always wrong. Something or someone has to judge that it is always wrong. I believe that there are basic morals that are the same. They are always wrong and just because subjective views may allow many different opinion to come into the equation doesn't mean that those morals are not objective and always true. Subjective morality doesn't say anything about the morals themselves. They only say something about the person who has the view of the moral. So subjectivity doesn't prove anything about morals.
Whats the difference. If they allow a law about abusing your body with drugs doesn't that mean you have to also have a moral view about abusing your body. The laws are made from the morals we have. So lets be more specific then. What about the Iraqi war. The coalition of the willing which represented all the so called lawful and decent nations especially the US and even the United nations said that what they were doing was just and right when they invaded Iraqi. There was a consensus of opinion that it was the right thing to do. But as we all know it wasn't in the end and made matter worse. There are many examples like this where even organizations like the united nations and NATO take actions based on the so called right thing to do which end up being wrong and making matters worse. Even when the Governments implement their policies for social controls they claim its all done for the good of people. We constantly see how they get it wrong and it has bad consequences for people.
This to me is a good example of how subjective views and secular thinking is destroying things. It allows people to challenge everything and nothing has any clear and solid ground to exist anymore. It allows even deluded and crazy ideas to have their say and if people are good enough at arguing for those ideas to be introduced then they can also push them onto others. We are seeing that now with things like the legalization of pot, the dismantling of anything that is to do with God from all our schools and public life. Yet at the same time have other atheistic views promoted. The promotion of inappropriate content and violence into our lounge rooms on the internet as well as idol and satanic worship in the media. There is no limits to what can happen.
Ok maybe I havnt explained myself properly. Never said I was the best at grammar. So let me try again.
If someone who doesn't believe in objective morals then states that what someone else is doing is wrong then they are claiming that what they believe to be right is more truthful. That in itself is being objective. The argument for subjective morality normally goes something like this.
The trouble is when it comes to real life situations we act like we believe in objective morality. We can say that everyone's views are all valid to each person but when something happens that affects us we suddenly take a more objective view. What you did was wrong and you have no right to have done that. I am right on this and you are wrong. But according to subjective morality what the other person did was OK because that is what they believed to be right.
So many who dont believe in objective morals practice objectivity by their actions everyday.
Yes but our standards are formed by the society we live in. They are not truly ours even though we may think they are. Besides if we all are judging others by all these different standards which one is right. Or do we have many standards to be judged by. I often hear people say dont judge others or you have no right to judge others. What we end up believing is our moral standard as far as what we say can be different to how we act when put in a situation where we are affected. The way we often act is how we really feel about morals. The way people act is normally pretty consistent. That consistency is something that is built into us and is something that is written into our makeup.
