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.
OK, then I'll continue as I was going to continue and agree with you.I guess it is a bit ambiguous. No, I mean't some sort of reality outside of the person. Dare I say, not objective reality?
... do you want to play this nonsense game about "truth"?
Truth is nonsense? Really?Do you desire to know the truth about the physical world?
You did. Torture and murder. You implied I thought that, because it's a relative matter (killing in the context as described), then there could be a morally acceptable murder.
Then nail something to the mast for heaven's sake...
Why does your grammar keep interfering with our conversation? That is *NOT* what I said. I said the *GAME* was nonsense. What game is that? The game about what "truth" is. (Which was never the subject of our conversation, until you tried to push it that way.)Truth is nonsense? Really?
I'm pretty sure the "direction" this part of the conversation was going was "Jesus = Truth" and that I am "supressing" it. This is what happens when you build your view of those that don't follow your god around a couple of sentences in a single polemic by a preacher you admire.I see that you are no longer willing to reply. OK, I'll let you go. Our exchange requires the participants to be both rational and honest. You appear to be the former so I suspect you came to see the outcome and rather than continue decided it was time to for you bail out. So long.
No, it's perfectly understandable. We'll use the usual definition thanks.Ok. We can jettison the term "moral relativism" since it too often confuses people with its ambiguity...
No, it's perfectly understandable. We'll use the usual definition thanks.
And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.I'm pretty sure the "direction" this part of the conversation was going was "Jesus = Truth" ...
I tracked this convo back to where it emerges from a deleted post, and I see no sentence of this sort from either of us.And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.
"What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason."
I tracked this convo back to where it emerges from a deleted post, and I see no sentence of this sort from either of us.
I'd never heard of "vertical morality" so I did a quick search.The post is in the parallel thread that morphed into a morality issue and was a reply addressed to you: "Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the Trump era".What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason.
Your nested quote in post #410 was broken and makes it look like I wrote your reply, so I'll reply to this one again.And you are wrong. That's what happens when one doesn't read their own replies.
"What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason."
What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason.
? The post was a direct reply to you.in a different thread. Why should I remember what you wrote elsewhere yesterday?
And you were wrong.It was a PREDICTION about what I thought would happen ...
OK.We could resume the moral discussion if you like, but I am not going to discuss the nature of "truth"
Change that to, "Do you desire to know the reality of the physical world?"Do you desire to know the truth about the physical world?
You're still not proposing anything. You're still not making any sort of argument whatsoever. You're not contributing anything at all.No we won't.
So you think that supporting an absolute morality (it's the very basis of the discussion) is too hard and you want to talk about something else? Let me know when you've started the new thread.Ok. We can jettison the term "moral relativism"...
As a bystander in your exchanges with @2PhiloVoid what strikes me the most is the absence of any discernible position from him. His mix of theology, epsitemology, lexicology, psychology, axiology, sociology and likely some ologies I've missed seemed designed more to obfuscate than clarify. That leaves the only ology I wish for, as an apology from him for wasting my time.*How about making a commitment to whatever position it is that you might hold and explain it?
You want me to remember what you wrote yesterday. LOL.? The post was a direct reply to you.
We haven't gotten there yet...And you were wrong.
It's my job. (And I do know.)OK.
Change that to, "Do you desire to know the reality of the physical world?"
I can only agree.As a bystander in your exchanges with @2PhiloVoid what strikes me the most is the absence of any discernible position from him. His mix of theology, epsitemology, lexicology, psychology, axiology, sociology and likely some ologies I've missed seemed designed more to obfuscate than clarify. That leaves the only ology I wish for, as an apology from him for wasting my time.*
* Actually, I am finding the exchange interesting, but the opportunity for a nice** bit of morphological parallelism for rhetorical effect was a temptation too far.
** I use "nice" in both senses of the word.***
*** It's 1:45 am here and I cannot get back to sleep. That's my excuse.
No because I cannot agree with its premise in the first place. Your more or less asking me to agree that the fact we cannot find any facts that God is real there God is not real.In other words...you can't think of an act without any context whereby we can determine the morality of said act. Can you agree with that, please? Then we'd be done.
No they are determined by the moral truths in each and every moral situation. Those moral truths will depend on reason but will have some belief basis about what is moral or not. Context is just the subjectiove expression of that subjective belief and will be different to those involved.Failing that, your only other option (and there are only 2) is to agree that the morality of all acts are determined by the context.
Yes it is and base morality on a completely different premise. That its not context as the determining factor but a moral truth that is never contextual. All context is doing is subjectifying about what is the moral truth.Which is it? It's not possible to disagree with both.
If you want to say that God determines absolute morality then can you simply please confirm that? I can then take it further.No because I cannot agree with its premise in the first place. Your more or less asking me to agree that the fact we cannot find any facts that God is real there God is not real.
Yes. That's my position.Part of the idea or perhaps the complete idea of using context to determine there is no moral objectives is the premise that morality must be rational in terms of reasoning out what is right and wrong by human reasoning about the subjective beliefs they place of what is morality.
You don't have to. Just confirm that your position is that God is the source of all objective morality and we'll go from there.Why would I even agree with this.
Yes, we can. Context is everything in both scenarios. Lying is acceptable under certain circumstances. In others it's not. H2O is a liquid under certain circumstances. In others it's not.If there are moral truths like laws and like how laws of physics works then just like we cannot contextualise laws of physics to mean different things in different situations.
But you can. This IS going to cause uneccessary pain and suffering to someone so I OUGHT not to do it. Now, that was pretty simple, no?Contextualising morality is like the arguement that you cannot get an "ought fron an is".
Oh, please...you're not going to start redefining things to suit your position as well, are you? Just please use the standard, everyday meaning of morality.So I would not even go along with the belief assumptions about what morality is and how we should measure it in the first place.
Hippocampus problems?You want me to remember what you wrote yesterday. LOL.
Just more stonewalling, deflecting, poor attempts at being snarky, and a possible brain disorder. So long.It's my job. (And I do know.)
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?