Needing justification for morality

[ThinkForYourself]

... I will conclude that attempting to communicate with you via written word is a lost cause.

You are correct.

I am not going to bow to your god and say slavery is moral. The threat of hell will never cause me to compromise my morals.

It saddens me greatly that the same can't be said for some on this forum.

 

[Davian]

“It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities. The theologians, taking one with another, are adept logicians, but every now and then they have to resort to sophistries so obvious that their whole case takes on an air of the ridiculous.

Even the most logical religion starts out with patently false assumptions. It is often argued in support of this or that one that men are so devoted to it that they are willing to die for it. That, of course, is as silly as the Santa Claus proof. Other men are just as devoted to manifestly false religions, and just as willing to die for them. Every theologian spends a large part of his time and energy trying to prove that religions for which multitudes of honest men have fought and died are false, wicked, and against God.”
― H.L. Mencken, Minority Report

 

[KCfromNC]

genocide isn't absolutely wrong, that it is just your opinion

This is a false dichotomy. There are way more choices than absolutely wrong and just one random person's opinion.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's the difference, I can rationally justify my position. He can't.

I notice you dodged answering what the rational justification is for his actions. Is that a tacit admission on your behalf that I'm correct? If not, please explain what the rational justification is.

Funny how moral absolutist always seem to end up in this position, where they have to justify some atrocity or another for their arguments to make sense. Normally they have to justify Biblical violence or abuses, as we've seen in this thread with people defending the morality of beating slaves, or in other threads defending the morality of genocide and extermination of nearly all life on the planet. Now someone supporting moral absolutes has to come up with a rational defense for the Holocaust to back up their argument.

And we're supposed to take direction on morality from these people?

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

This topic is permanently closed.

MOD HAT OFF​