Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Credit is better than blame. Gratitude is better than resentment. That should give you a guide to why Christians think the way they do.
If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.
Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.
Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.
I think the problem is you make the assumption that morality is objective/absolute rather than subjective. There is no absolute objective moral standard; it is all subjective. The reason your argument about the speed limit fails is because the speed limit is based upon the law, and the law is objective. That's why you can't compare morality to the law.If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.
Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.
Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.
Oh, and actually, I did point out the problem with it. Would you like to go over that again?
Boyle's law can be demonstrated; thus it is objective, morality can't; thus it is subjective. That's why your argument fails.Missed the point. The point is that agreement fails as evidence of a standard.
Want another example? if you and I disagree about the actual terms of Boyle's Law, does that mean the law doesn't exist?
No, but consensus should at least be a hint of weather or not the claim is objective or subjective.Consensus is no measure (pro or con) of the truth of a claim.
If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.
Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.
Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.
I think the point was people can disagree about morality because aside from what a society or culture generally agrees upon, there is no objective standard .
Aside from consensus, can you point to any other source for a moral standard?
What if a Christian were to point out the 10 Commandments as an objective moral standard?
Sure, that would work - for Christians. But those are not universal. No morals are. They change from religion to religion, society to society, culture to culture, and from individual to individual.
ETA: The 10 commandments are "objective" in that they are there for all to see, and are not particularly subject to personal interpretation, feelings or emotions, etc.
Okay, I see. Objective, but not universal, I suppose. Do you think that if there were some list of objective moral standards that the entire world agreed on - every person would obey it all the time?
Okay, I see. Objective, but not universal, I suppose. Do you think that if there were some list of objective moral standards that the entire world agreed on - every person would obey it all the time?
Right. Certainly not absolute, and certainly not universal. If there were a list that everyone agreed on, not every person would obey it all the time. Like I've said previously, we can all pretty much agree that murder is wrong (notice I said "murder" here and not "killing"). But, there are people who still murder. So I don't think it'd ever be possible to get everyone all on the same page all of the time.
Yeah...I don't think so either. I find it interesting that you are able to differentiate between "killing" and "murder". Many people don't understand that there is a difference.
Well, I differentiate because of my experiences in this very forum.
Further, the underlying construct to not murder, for example, is simply: humans are a social species. It's how we survive. In groups. Helping and relying on one another. If we went around murdering, stealing, raping, and pillaging, well... we would not have made it thus far.
That's awesome. You've been on a journey...so many of us have as well. I really believe this is a great forum for so many reasons. It's like Facebook for intellectuals...LOL
That's not a satisfying basis for the grounding of individual rights. "For the greater good".
Why not?
What if a Christian were to point out the 10 Commandments as an objective moral standard?
You're relatively new here. So after you've been here a while, I'll give you a chance to amend that statement!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?