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.
If you can get someone else to agree to the way you're connecting the objectivity of the subject and the immutability of the object, maybe they can explain your question to me so I understand it.
Umm. That obedience to the commands is arbitrary or that the commands themselves are arbitrary?
You stated a change in conditions, would impact whether objectivity morality changes, correct?
Choosing one deity out of thousands to obey based on personal whims would be arbitrary.
You can't show why the chosen deity would command one thing and not another, so the commands would be arbitrary as well until shown otherwise.
See post 257, were you state different conditions can result in a different answer to whether something is moral or not.
I am tempted to chase this, but it wasn't part of the original scope of my objection. Maybe later when the original question is answered (If you don't laugh at that ...)
If the only reply you're going to give to me is, "Nah, that's arbitrary," then my original post in this thread stands as my argument, "Nah."
I suggested you provide examples of something that is arbitrary and something that is not.
Why is a majority of military equipment green?
A. A guy in 1432 was fond of green, and the tradition stuck.
B. It blends into foliage which makes the vehicles harder to see.
A is arbitrary. B is not arbitrary.
The command is "Though shalt not murder," which is basically a tautology that equates to saying one should not kill without justification.
I would say B connects the color green to a purpose of military vehicles. Choice A does not. Do you agree?
I would say that B gives a valid justification for why the vehicles should be green other than "we just trust that the painter has a good reason for doing so".
Why is it a valid justification?
Camouflage is useful in military maneuvers. You can demonstrate function and utility outside of a person's claim.
Sure. And you're distinguishing military uses from civilian uses of green vehicles, correct?
Yes. I even gave an example. But neither my answer nor the example had any bearing on changes in "objective morality". It was simply to point out that there is no one single answer as in "Thou shalt not kill." The command is "Though shalt not murder," which is basically a tautology that equates to saying one should not kill without justification. Exactly what justifies killing then depends upon the conditions.
Finally, I asked you to give an example where you think the claimed "objective morality" has changed. I'm not aware of such a case.
Is killing the only moral issue?
That distinction was there from the start.
So would you consider it arbitrary to put camouflage paint on a civilian vehicle?
Unless the civilian voiced a valid reason for doing so, I would consider it to be arbitrary.
Not really.
It's hard to believe because most of my experiences do not point towards a happy ending for things. And I don't find the Bible all that persuasive in this matter. I guess because I take an entirely different approach to the Bible and I always have. I'm not a "Bible answer man" kind of Christian.
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?