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.
Feelings are neither true or false. How can something be right or wrong without relating to some actual state of affairs? To be consistent, you must maintain that right or wrong aren't genuine states with any real referent just emotional reactions.
Genuine states? They are genuine emotional states. They are emotional reactions, does that make them less real? That they are private to me, isn't problematic.
Verifiable in what sense? And to what degree?
I have no interest in gaining your respect, but your et tu tu isn't applicable because I make no claims of reasoning my way to morality. So I agree Hume's argument applies to me as much as @Bradskii, i'm just not under illusions that I can bootstrap my way to morality.
you've provided no reason for me to relent, nor offered anything by way of counter.
It's not the feelings or preferences that are fictitious, but the "moral" character or content. The sense of right and wrong must be fictitious if there is no referant outside of your feelings.
That is determined by the experience of the feeling in my view. I have never seen or heard a convincing definition of rightness or wrongness as stand-alone properties outside of some person.
So you're creating a fiction based purely on your emotions. Seems a rather pointless game to play, if you genuinely don't believe there is a rightness or wrongness inherent in moral activities in any real sense how can you hold to any sort of preference? It's inconsistent.
This couldn't get any weirder. The discussion is about morality and if I say 'Well, here's an example of a moral question. What do you think?' you refuse to answer. But, as I said...we know why. That little corner you've painted yourself into cannot allow personal decisions on moral matters.
I like to feel good, hence I try to act in accordance with what I perceive as moral feelings. Where is the inconsistency? Rightness and wrongness are the emotional content of those feelings.
The discussion isn't about morality, it's about whether or not it is possible to have morality without an absolute morality. So your questions in the middle of our exchange are nothing but distractions to the fact that your bootstrapping is futile.
So revelation gives you the answer to moral questions. So tell me, what does revelation say about the girl honouring her abusive father or the one locked in her room?
You can keep trying to distract, but you're wasting your energy repeating questions i've already made clear not only that i won't answer them but why. Repeating the questions doesn't make your "reasoning" any more salient.
We need no such test, what we need is some viable candidate that excludes any form of absolute or objective moral benchmarks while maintaining genuine moral character. So far, none has been presented.
