But the claim about it being out of context is not based on a belief. It is based on logic. If there is more than one meaning for evil then it is logical that more than one meaning could apply. If the first part of the verse talks about opposites in light and dark then it is logical that the second part follows the same. The interpretation of evil is inconsistent. Therefore the opposite is something opposite to peace and calamity best fits that consistency.
Only if you think the Bible is repeating itself. That's not apparent from reading it.
But that is not the only logic. The rest of the bible says there is no evil in God. If God created evil then he is evil. That is inconsistent with the entire Bible. That is what is meant by context. You do realize you have been pleading context with your arguments. We all do and it is important.
You think there are no inconsistencies in the Bible?
If people really believed in subjective morality then they would react like certain things are really morally right and wrong. Because they believe there is no objective right and wrong and morals are only about "likes and dislike" just like food taste. So when someone does something wrong they shouldn't condemn them. Why condemn someone for liking chocolate cake for example. They are only expressing their subjective preference for something and there are no moral values involved.
What? I'm saying that people can believe that their moral views are objective even if those views are really just subjective.
I've already dealt with the teacher example.
The second example is just a case of people with a shared subjective opinion. You can't claim that lots of people having that opinion makes it objective, just as the fact that you can get a room full of Star Trek fans saying Trek is better than Star Wars makes that an objective fact.
In the third example, the existence of laws that cover moral issues again does not make those morals objective.
Guidelines imposed by companies does not equate to forcing morality on others. It is simply a case of companies not wishing people to use their companies as a billboard for certain views.
You obviously cannot see the logic here. This goes back to the logical argument posted earlier. So it is like saying that people acting like the physical world is what it is doesn't make what we see and observe what it is. We really could be brains in a vat just being what we experience.
I see the argument you are trying to make. It just isn't valid.
You can't show objectively that we aren't brains in a jar, and you can't show the existence of objective morality.
You are not seeing the logic here either. If there are only straight lines then there is no circumference that allows you to measure the different angles. There can be nothing whatsoever to allow a person to determine, workout what an angle is. Otherwise, an angle already exists as the mathematical equation. But in this scenario angles don't exist only straight lines. What your doing is sneaking the possibility for angles into the scenario through back doors When you do that you now have a comparison/opposite with a straight line. But you cannot have that in this scenario.
You know the circumference is not a straight line, right?
OK I will let you address the same question above which applies to this situation as well and then we can move on.
What question?
But if there is no objective morality to give empathy its meaning then you could not come to the conclusion that empathy is a moral value in any way, shape, or form. It won't even come close. If all we are is chemicals and biological processes then it would be just impulses, jerks, and fizzing and at best "likes or dislikes". As Dawkins puts it "there is no evil or good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference".
Why do you think we need objective morality to give empathy meaning? Why can't subjective morality give it meaning?
Acting without empathy and being callous or apathetic towards others would not be morally wrong but just be acting out of fashing, on likes based on biological processes that have been ingrained in us. So there would be no distinction between treating someone like yourself or treating them horrible. It is your giving empathy any moral "good" value that I am saying can not happen under subjective morality.
So if I see someone who is badly hurt but I do not help them because I lack empathy towards them, I'm not being morally wrong?
Your not understanding. Under subjective morality, if there are no objective morals they cannot even take a stance as that implies a "should or ought" and there are no "should or ought" if there are no objective moral values.
Why not? Why can't we say things like, "I think this is the way things should be," if there's no objective morality?
The professor/teacher is not using his or any moral tastes or position at all. He is reflecting the student's own position "that there are no moral right and wrongs and everything is subjective" back onto him. So he is pretending to take the students view to prove a point.
Yes you are. Your example specifically said that the prof marked the student down because he didn't like blue folders. What is that if not personal taste?
Then I hate to say this then why do people expect others to act in accordance with their moral views. I thought as you have just pointed out they they should not do this under subjective morals. If they do are they acting more objectively.
Because for the most part we share moral views. That can happen with subjective morality, you know.
No, I am saying hypothetically. That you may take a subjective position that stealing is OK if it allows a person to better their life if they were down on their luck for example. But when someone steals from you in that situation you react like it was wrong and contradict your moral position.
Does this show that deep inside you that you really know that stealing is always wrong?
No, it just shows that some people lack empathy.