Where does morality come from?

Moral Orel said:

Can you please cite a source for this? I've been dying to find out where you get your definitions from.

Click to expand...

Moral relativism - Wikipedia
In detail, descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgement being expressed on the desirability of this. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong. Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when considerably large disagreements about the morality of particular things exist.
What I highlighted at the end is what sounds like what he was calling subjective morality

Objective vs. Subjective
Subjective refers to personal perspectives, feelings, or opinions entering the decision making process.
Objective refers to the elimination of subjective perspectives and a process that is purely based on hard facts.
Hard facts apply to everyone. I cannot think of any moral positions that are based on hard facts; can you?

Moral Orel said:

.The fact that you have demonstrated in the recent past that your car does start is evidence.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe direct evidence would be for me to go under the hood, inspect the engine and make sure nothing is wrong before attempting to start it. IMO the fact that my car started in the past is reason; not direct evidence.

Moral Orel said:

Do you have any evidence that "nobody makes ice cream a moral issue"?

Click to expand...

I never claimed I had evidence.

Moral Orel said:

If you don't require evidence for what you believe, then you can just believe anything, can't you?

Click to expand...

No. I cant believe what I find completely unreasonable (like someone actually believes Ice cream is a moral issue) unless there is substantial evidence that tells me otherwise.

Moral Orel said:

I gave you the same explanation for ice cream that you gave me for murder. What more do I need?

Click to expand...

Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence. The idea that murder is a moral issue is what I would call an ordinary claim. The idea that some people consider ice cream flavor a moral issue is what I would call an extraordinary claim

Ken-1122 said:

I disagree. I believe direct evidence would be for me to go under the hood, inspect the engine and make sure nothing is wrong before attempting to start it. IMO the fact that my car started in the past is reason; not direct evidence.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know you added the word "direct" so that you can pick and choose what evidence qualifies as evidence, I've been ignoring that and simply saying "evidence".

Ken-1122 said:

I never claimed I had evidence.

Click to expand...

Believing something without evidence is the very definition of unreasonable ("without reason" = "without evidence"). Yet you're going to tell me in the next couple of sentences that you can't believe what you find completely unreasonable. Imagine that.

Ken-1122 said:

Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence. The idea that murder is a moral issue is what I would call an ordinary claim. The idea that some people consider ice cream flavor a moral issue is what I would call an extraordinary claim

Click to expand...

So you're justifying your argument from popularity with an argument from incredulity. Imagine that. You know, I could understand withholding belief that there are people out there who consider ice cream to be a moral issue, but you've taken it a step further to the point of believing the opposite is true with zero justification.

I've told you how I describe morality, and I've told you that I consider ice cream flavor to be a moral issue, following your loose and sloppy definition of a "moral issue", so why don't you believe me? Is there an inconsistency in what I've said?

Also, you skipped a few questions in post 2055. Is my assessment of what you describe "caring" to be correct?

Ken-1122 said:

Objective vs. Subjective
Subjective refers to personal perspectives, feelings, or opinions entering the decision making process.
Objective refers to the elimination of subjective perspectives and a process that is purely based on hard facts.

Click to expand...

You didn't bother to look up a source about the difference between objective and subjective morality? That's about business making decisions. Remember, you're the one who says that context on this is so important you should be using "right" and "wrong" in a way that you wouldn't use in any other context.

Moral Orel said:

Believing something without evidence is the very definition of unreasonable ("without reason" = "without evidence"). Yet you're going to tell me in the next couple of sentences that you can't believe what you find completely unreasonable. Imagine that.

Click to expand...

Below are 3 separate dictionary definitions of the word unreasonable. As you can see “without evidence” has nothing to do with any of the definitions listed, so according to the below definitions, your argument fails. However, perhaps you can find a definition that defines unreasonable as the same as without evidence; however if you can’t (or won’t) your argument fails.

Definition of UNREASONABLE
unreasonable
Unreasonable definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Moral Orel said:

So you're justifying your argument from popularity with an argument from incredulity. Imagine that. You know, I could understand withholding belief that there are people out there who consider ice cream to be a moral issue, but you've taken it a step further to the point of believing the opposite is true with zero justification.

I've told you how I describe morality, and I've told you that I consider ice cream flavor to be a moral issue, following your loose and sloppy definition of a "moral issue", so why don't you believe me? Is there an inconsistency in what I've said?

Click to expand...

I find the idea of attaching moral issues with ice cream flavors to be absurd. However if you are going to claim that this is a moral issue with you, I am not going to argue with you over it; as crazy as that sounds to me, only you know what is going on inside of your head. However, just because you may believe ice cream flavors to be a moral issue doesn’t mean I should believe it. If you want me to believe it a moral issue you need to provide a reason I find convincing and thus far “because you said so” is not a convincing reason to me.

Moral Orel said:

Also, you skipped a few questions in post 2055. Is my assessment of what you describe "caring" to be correct?

Click to expand...

I agreed with you.

Moral Orel said:

You didn't bother to look up a source about the difference between objective and subjective morality? That's about business making decisions. Remember, you're the one who says that context on this is so important you should be using "right" and "wrong" in a way that you wouldn't use in any other context.

Click to expand...

If you don’t like my link, perhaps you can provide one.

stevevw said:

What do you mean where has anyone said that. I am not saying you said that. I am correcting you on what I mean and am saying. I said people who claim a subjective moral position act and react like morals are objective. You said
But you claim that their actions mean the moral ideas they share are objectively true because they share it. How many times do I need to say that people acting like something is objective does not make that thing objective?

I then said it is more than just sharing a moral position. They are stating and claiming something. They are saying that unless people have the same moral position as they do they are wrong in their own moral position. That any subjective moral position the other person has is always going to be wrong and never right. That is more than just sharing a moral position. That is an ontological claim that objective morality exists and is the only morality.

Then I said when all reasonable people do this you can begin to build a case that there is something else going on. It is more than just evidence due to popularity but that there is something that is causing people to react this way beyond their personal views of morality.

This is an important distinction when it comes to supporting objective morality and this is what ethical and philosophical experts use as support for objective morality. That most reasonable people know that there are certain moral truths that are universal.

Click to expand...

If nobody said it, why did you have to clarify that's not what you said?

stevevw said:

But under subjective morality, your personal view would carry no weight as being ultimately the right moral position.

Click to expand...

I don't need an ultimate right or wrong for me to make a decision about what I think is right or wrong. All I need is empathy to try to see what I would feel like if I was in that situation, and then I act in the way that I'd hope other people would act towards me.

As there is no moral grounding and no reference point to measure things objectively a pedophile could say I think abusing a child is good or a cult leader could make up some scenario where it is good for everyone to express their sexuality including children and their moral view could not be determined as wrong or sick.

Click to expand...

Again, you have to resort to an extreme situation to make your point. Funny how you only seem to be able to make your point when you alleged objective morality applies to extreme situations when you clearly stated that it applies to ALL moral situations.

And if you wanted to say that it is an objective fact that people who were abused suffer emotional trauma a case can be made as to why that doesn't mean anything about being ultimately good or bad morally. The idea that certain things make humans suffer is also a subjective thing. Why is human suffering a bad thing in the first place? Who says so. In other words, there is no basis for equating human happiness and suffering with moral right and wrong in the first place.

Click to expand...

Why is human suffering bad? Because I don't like it when I have suffered and my empathy allows me to understand that other people probably don't like suffering either.

This isn't a difficult concept. I don't know why you are apparently having trouble with it.

VirOptimus said:

”not” was not in the post i quoted.

Click to expand...

What difference does "not" make. I just added the "not" to make my post clearer as you said it was "word salad". It is still the same thing I am asking you regardless of how it is written. Its a simple question I'm asking

Without any independent measure to determine what you are saying is true how does the other person you are arguing with know that you are correct in what you say.

and no, I wouldnt and neither would it matter.

Click to expand...

It matters because if you don't have any inde[pendent measure to show what you are saying is true then you could be making things up and no one could tell.

Kylie said:

If nobody said it, why did you have to clarify that's not what you said?

Click to expand...

OK sorry, the penny just dropped. I thought you were talking about me accusing you (singling you out) for something and that's why I clarified that I was saying it was a general statement. But I get it now. You want to know who in general says that.

Well, I have given you ample examples in previous posts. When someone with a subjective moral position (personal opinion only) says to another person that they are right and another person is wrong they are making a "truth" statement about their moral position. If someone else walked into the room or joined the conversation/argument and also had a different view they would also say that person was wrong. They are making a "universal truth" statement against all other subjective moral views. They are contradicting their own moral position and they don't even realize it.

This happens all the time in arguments over moral issues, in comment sections below articles on someones behaving badly or controversial issues, on social media and forums like this one. People come out condemning and protesting that certain actions as wrong, that the person should not have done the act. In fact, it often gets to a point where people are calling the perpetrators names and threatening them and people organizing protests against certain acts like they are the holders of the truth on what is right and wrong.

On what grounds do people claim that certain acts are morally wrong which they take a subjective position. What is the measure that truly determines the acts as wrong? If subjective morality is just a personal view then how can they make a truth statement about a moral act? Surely by doing that they are taking their personal opinion to another level and putting it out there that they know the truth of what is morally right and wrong and that no one should do that act.

stevevw said:

If subjective morality is just a personal view then how can they make a truth statement about a moral act?

Click to expand...

Because subjective morality is not necessarily "just a personal view."

Kylie said:

I don't need an ultimate right or wrong for me to make a decision about what I think is right or wrong.

Click to expand...

But as I have pointed out several times now that is fine if you use that analogy for yourself but people don't do that. They then take their personal opinion and use that to say that the other person's subjective moral position is wrong when they protest and condemn their actions as wrong. They are claiming a moral truth.

Rather I thought a subjective position would require someone to say, in my opinion, you are wrong but I know that you have your opinion as well and that is right for you. So neither of us can truthfully say that the other is wrong so live and let live.

All I need is empathy to try to see what I would feel like if I was in that situation, and then I act in the way that I'd hope other people would act towards me.

Click to expand...

As I have also pointed out several times that empathy which is a feeling cannot be a good guide to determine what is objectively the right or wrong moral values and duties towards others. You may feel that way but others won't feel the same because it's a feeling and feelings are arbitrary and unpredictable.

They can be swayed by influences such as a bias towards certain people, races, lifestyles, etc. People make those distinctions all the time. IE "I don't like those people because they are X". Therefore they are going to be more empathetic towards others rather than X. I posted a good paper on the subject.
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again
Empathy is crucial to being a good person, right? Think again

Again, you have to resort to an extreme situation to make your point. Funny how you only seem to be able to make your point when you alleged objective morality applies to extreme situations when you clearly stated that it applies to ALL moral situations.

Click to expand...

But I didn't take things to the so-called extreme example you did on this occasion. You said why can't I say that child abuse is wrong. I did not refer to it prior to you saying that in this particular conversation. I was just talking about the difference between popularity and how people contradict their own subjective position for support of objective morality.

But I can use less extreme examples and have done already. Such as stealing. When someone condemns someone for stealing or having an affair (cheating on their wife or girlfriend) for example. They are making a "truth" statement that anyone doing that and the act itself is wrong. They should be saying "in my opinion I think its wrong, but hey who am I to judge, each person to their own as they have their own subjective position and they may think it is OK to do".

Why is human suffering bad? Because I don't like it when I have suffered and my empathy allows me to understand that other people probably don't like suffering either.
This isn't a difficult concept. I don't know why you are apparently having trouble with it.

Click to expand...

I understand that. But what I am saying is that a person's determination of who gets empathy and when can be influenced by many things which can make one person deserving and another not depending on how they feel about the person and situation or circumstances involved. They could be callous towards one and give all empathy to another. I gave examples already.

Plus who says that human suffering equals morality. There is no logical reason to equate human happiness and suffering from moral right and wrong. Someone may consider suffering a good thing like in helping them become a stronger person. Someone may view happiness is derived from something morally wrong like taking other people's money.

Speedwell said:

Because subjective morality is not necessarily "just a personal view."

Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. Group consensus and societal norms have no more truth to what is morally right or wrong. If a bunch of people decided that getting rid of old people would be a good thing to ensure there were enough resources that that would be a good thing according to the group.

A good example is that adultery was seen as wrong in the past. But now it is becoming a norm and is not seen as wrong but rather the right of the individual to find love and happiness. That has mainly been dictated by the media which is basically a small representation of society but with great influence. The same with corporations and their codes of conduct and politics.

What is right and wrong can be dictated from the top or bought with influence. The ironic thing is in a secular society that claims subjective morality societies' morals are being engineered by a small group of people with much power and influence anyway.

stevevw said:

OK sorry, the penny just dropped. I thought you were talking about me accusing you (singling you out) for someone and that's why I clarified that I was saying it was a general statement. But I get it now. You want to know who in general says that.

Well, I have given you ample examples in previous posts. When someone with a subjective moral position (personal opinion only) says to another person that they are right and another person is wrong they are making a "truth" statement about their moral position. If someone else walked into the room or joined the conversation/argument and also had a different view they would also say that person was wrong. They are making a "universal truth" statement against all other subjective moral views. They are contradicting their own moral position and they don't even realize it.

This happens all the time in arguments over moral issues, in comment sections below articles on someones behaving badly or controversial issues, on social media and forums like this one. People come out condemning and protesting that certain actions as wrong, that the person should not have done the act. In fact, it often gets to a point where people are calling the perpetrators names and threatening them and people organizing protests against certain acts like they are the holders of the truth on what is right and wrong.

On what grounds do people claim that certain acts are morally wrong which they take a subjective position. What is the measure that truly determines the acts as wrong? If subjective morality is just a personal view then how can they make a truth statement about a moral act? Surely by doing that they are taking their personal opinion to another level and putting it out there that they know the truth of what is morally right and wrong and that no one should do that act.

Click to expand...

No, when a person says to another, "You are right," they are saying, "Your actions in this situation match the subjective morality I hold, and thus I agree that your actions were appropriate."

For example, let's say that there's a person who starts hitting someone else. A bystander steps in and smacks the hitter in the head.

Nearby are two people, Person A and Person B.

Person A says to the bystander, "You did the right thing." What Person A means is that they would have done a similar thing in that situation, believing that the hitter needed to be stopped from hitting the victim.

Person B says, "You did the wrong thing," perhaps because they believe that all violence is wrong, or that the bystander should have tried to stop it with words, or even just placing themselves between the hitter and the victim.

These are two different people with two different opinions about the event. This is exactly what we would expect to see if morality is subjective. The fact that both of them described the bystander's actions in a way that you interpret as referring to an absolute morality does not make it so.

Searching_for_God said:

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone...

Click to expand...

God's rules are practical. So, unbelievers can accept some number of them.

If they have a rule against murder, for example, this can keep someone from killing them at any time somebody else wants what they have or is mad at them or just finds killing to be entertaining.

So, there can be morals which unbelievers want, for only selfish reasons. So, in some cases the moral of unbelievers might not originate from God, but from their own motives.

Ken-1122 said:

I agreed with you.

Click to expand...

Ahh, this one is a big one, so let's hop back in the Way-Back-Machine and see what I predicted you would say about using empathy to judge morality:

Moral Orel said:

Sure, and you say to yourself, "That thing makes that other person feel bad, it would make me feel bad too and/or it makes me feel bad that someone else feels bad, and I don't like feeling bad, so I don't like that thing. As I said, it's a way to know what you will like or dislike.

Click to expand...

And although it took a long time to get there, you said about what it means to care for all people, although to varying degrees of intensity of emotion depending on the closeness of your relationship to any given individual:

Ken-1122 said:

I feel good when they feel happy, and bad when they feel bad.

Click to expand...

Gee, whodathunkit? So once again, I told you exactly what you feel and gave you a big head start to come up with any other explanation, but you had to admit I was right all along. The things you deem immoral because they cause harm to others, you deem immoral because ultimately you just don't like feeling bad. If you didn't feel bad, you wouldn't care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have any motivation to declare such a thing immoral. It works just the same in the inverse too. You deem things moral because when they happen they make you feel good, even if it's through the proxy of others via empathy.

Every single instance of you telling me that there's more to morality than likes and dislikes, you always come right back to them. How many times am I going to have to tell you what you're thinking before you start to realize that, "Hey, maybe this weirdo is on to something"?

Ken-1122 said:

Below are 3 separate dictionary definitions of the word unreasonable. As you can see “without evidence” has nothing to do with any of the definitions listed, so according to the below definitions, your argument fails. However, perhaps you can find a definition that defines unreasonable as the same as without evidence; however if you can’t (or won’t) your argument fails.

Definition of UNREASONABLE
unreasonable
Unreasonable definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Click to expand...

Mmm-hmm. Evidence is the only way to use reason to believe something. If you believe something without evidence, you are acting without the use of reason; i.e. you are being unreasonable. All of those definitions state in one form or another "acting without the use of reason", so in the context of justified beliefs, I'm right, I just phrased it poorly.

Are you really an atheist? Because if you enjoy believing things without evidence because they make you feel good, have I got a story for you!

Ken-1122 said:

I find the idea of attaching moral issues with ice cream flavors to be absurd. However if you are going to claim that this is a moral issue with you, I am not going to argue with you over it; as crazy as that sounds to me, only you know what is going on inside of your head. However, just because you may believe ice cream flavors to be a moral issue doesn’t mean I should believe it. If you want me to believe it a moral issue you need to provide a reason I find convincing and thus far “because you said so” is not a convincing reason to me.

Click to expand...

I don't care if you agree with me that chocolate ice cream is good. That never mattered. It's a moral issue for me. And I'm saying that in all honesty, I'm not making a ridiculous claim for the sake of winning an argument. You say it's absurd for me to hold that as a moral issue but won't say why. The reason is because you recognize that all morals are just built with likes and dislikes, and there's no way to exclude something you feel is silly without reason like ice cream flavor.

Ken-1122 said:

If you don’t like my link, perhaps you can provide one.

Click to expand...

I did a long time ago, and you disagreed with it. So I just thought that you had actually read something, anything, about subjective morality before, and to that I will admit I was wrong. Turns out your ideas about subjective morality are just whatever you cooked up by reading business articles. Who knew?

stevevw said:

Rather I thought a subjective position would require someone to say, in my opinion, you are wrong but I know that you have your opinion as well and that is right for you.

Click to expand...

No, that's Moral Nihilism. What it is, I think, is that in your eagerness to grasp on to moral objectivity as a proof for God you have trapped yourself in a false dichotomy where morals are either objective or nothing but the product of individual ratiocination. But there is quite a bit more to subjective morality than that which you have blinded yourself to and it makes your arguments suck. Who knows? Maybe you are right about objective morality. As I mentioned before, I regard moral objectivity as an unfalsifiable proposition, so I can't say not. But the way you thrash around you are not getting any closer to proving it.

Moral Orel said:

Gee, whodathunkit? So once again, I told you exactly what you feel and gave you a big head start to come up with any other explanation, but you had to admit I was right all along. The things you deem immoral because they cause harm to others, you deem immoral because ultimately you just don't like feeling bad. If you didn't feel bad, you wouldn't care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have any motivation to declare such a thing immoral. It works just the same in the inverse too. You deem things moral because when they happen they make you feel good, even if it's through the proxy of others via empathy.

Every single instance of you telling me that there's more to morality than likes and dislikes, you always come right back to them. How many times am I going to have to tell you what you're thinking before you start to realize that, "Hey, maybe this weirdo is on to something"?

Click to expand...

I was very clear; that doesn’t apply to everyone, only those close to me like a brother. Care to try again? This time quit taking what I say out of context. (it makes you look desperate)

Moral Orel said:

Mmm-hmm. Evidence is the only way to use reason to believe something. If you believe something without evidence, you are acting without the use of reason; i.e. you are being unreasonable.

Click to expand...

I need a little more than your word on this. I provided sources to make my point, the least you can do is back up your claim with an outside source.

Moral Orel said:

I don't care if you agree with me that chocolate ice cream is good. That never mattered. It's a moral issue for me. And I'm saying that in all honesty, I'm not making a ridiculous claim for the sake of winning an argument. You say it's absurd for me to hold that as a moral issue but won't say why.

Click to expand...

I thought I was clear; that is only my opinion.

Kylie said:

No, when a person says to another, "You are right," they are saying, "Your actions in this situation match the subjective morality I hold, and thus I agree that your actions were appropriate."

For example, let's say that there's a person who starts hitting someone else. A bystander steps in and smacks the hitter in the head.

Nearby are two people, Person A and Person B.

Person A says to the bystander, "You did the right thing." What Person A means is that they would have done a similar thing in that situation, believing that the hitter needed to be stopped from hitting the victim.

Click to expand...

No person A is not just expressing a personal opinion but rather making a truth statement. They are using objective language when they say "the hitter needed to be stopped". Because they have no independent measure that the "hitter needed to be stopped". " Needed to be stopped is the same as saying "should be stopped" which is an objective statement. So person A is turning the hitter's action into a truthful and objectively right action.

Person B says, "You did the wrong thing," perhaps because they believe that all violence is wrong, or that the bystander should have tried to stop it with words, or even just placing themselves between the hitter and the victim.

Click to expand...

Person B is also making a "truth" statement but instead of claiming that the action is objectively right, they are now saying it is objectively wrong. Same thing just the opposite claim. They have no independent measure to determine the action was wrong yet are claiming it is wrong. Claiming it is wrong for everyone else who steps in and disagrees with them.

These are two different people with two different opinions about the event. This is exactly what we would expect to see if morality is subjective. The fact that both of them described the bystander's actions in a way that you interpret as referring to an absolute morality does not make it so.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Though the views were opposite that were both making a truth statement. One was saying it was truthfully right to do that. The other is saying it is truthfully wrong to do that. If either had a 2nd or 3rd person come in on the situation they would also discount their views if they did not match the view they have determined as truth. They would do it to all people who were in disagreement and that makes it a universal claim.

stevevw said:

No person A is not just expressing a personal opinion but rather making a truth statement. They are using objective language when they say "the hitter needed to be stopped". Because they have no independent measure that the "hitter needed to be stopped". " Needed to be stopped is the same as saying "should be stopped" which is an objective statement. So person A is turning the hitter's action into a truthful and objectively right action.

Person B is also making a "truth" statement but instead of claiming that the action is objectively right, they are now saying it is objectively wrong. Same thing just the opposite claim. They have no independent measure to determine the action was wrong yet are claiming it is wrong. Claiming it is wrong for everyone else who steps in and disagrees with them.


Yes, it does. Though the views were opposite that were both making a truth statement. One was saying it was truthfully right to do that. The other is saying it is truthfully wrong to do that. If either had a 2nd or 3rd person come in on the situation they would also discount their views if they did not match the view they have determined as truth. They would do it to all people who were in disagreement and that makes it a universal claim.

Click to expand...

Person A is literally saying "I think you did the right thing."

You seem determined to interpret things the way you want based on what you want the results to be, which is why, perhaps, you resort to quibbling over words, just as you are doing here.. You are letting your biases control you and it's impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

Ken-1122 said:

I was very clear; that doesn’t apply to everyone, only those close to me like a brother.

Click to expand...

Bologna. Now you're just being dishonest, it makes you look desperate. But okay, I'll need to demonstrate you're fibbing, so here we go:

You quoted these two bits:

Moral Orel said:

Okay, so the feelings are stronger the more you know a person, but the same general description of caring that you provided fits, right?

Click to expand...

Moral Orel said:

Just to be clear, when you said "nothing" you were just exaggerating and in reality you always feel at least a tiny bit in the way that you have described "caring"? Is that correct?

Click to expand...

And replied:

Ken-1122 said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

So no, it doesn't "only apply to someone close to you like a brother".

And just to be crystal clear, I summed it all up and asked again this:

Moral Orel said:

And after further discussion you've said that "yes" this describes every person, but with the stipulation that those feelings are stronger for people you are close to and very weak for people you don't know at all. Your position changed from "nothing" to "at least a tiny bit" over the course of the past few posts so I want to make sure I've got it all straight now.

Click to expand...

Which you didn't respond to in your next post, so I asked you to return to it here:

Moral Orel said:

Also, you skipped a few questions in post 2055. Is my assessment of what you describe "caring" to be correct?

Click to expand...

And you replied with this:

Ken-1122 said:

I agreed with you.

Click to expand...

So don't try to feed me some bull-honkey like I didn't accurately convey what you said. You probably thought that because you stretched your wishy-washy replies, where your position changed over the course of it, your mistakes would get lost, but this is why I enjoy debating on a digital format that preserves our responses. No fibbing. You lost bro. You've got nothing. You're literally trying to justify your beliefs with nothing. You should have one and only post in this thread that says, "I disagree with objective morality. I dunno, that's just how I feel. No reason."

Ken-1122 said:

I need a little more than your word on this. I provided sources to make my point, the least you can do is back up your claim with an outside source.

Click to expand...

Logic 101 bro, try it some time. I mean, you're defending the act of believing without evidence, what use is there in providing evidence and explaining reason to you if you're just going to believe whatever you feel like?

Ken-1122 said:

I thought I was clear; that is only my opinion.

Click to expand...

Which you hold without evidence, which is unreasonable.