Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk If you disagree feel free to show me how one subjective opinion can be more valid than another if there is no objective criteria by which to judge them.
"Valid" in whose eyes?
All your grindingly repetitive questions suggest pretty clearly that you are simply ignoring just about everything I said on the "Hitler" thread.
What do you do in situations where the decisions of people are the key to it and you think there are "no objective criteria by which to judge them"?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Sorry this post should have read: [i]blah blah blah repetitious blah blah ad nauseam...
Nevertheless, Give me an example of some things in your imagination that are connected with angels and demons and deities and supernatural phenomena and that you think are "objective opinions".
All your grindingly repetitive questions suggest pretty clearly that you are simply ignoring just about everything I said on the "Hitler" thread.
What do you do in situations where the decisions of people are the key to it and you think there are "no objective criteria by which to judge them"?
Let's say for arguments sake there are no moral absolutes, how would I as a neutral third party be able to objectively judge whether your morals are more valid than Hitlers? What criteria or which standards should I use? Yours? Hitlers? Societies? Common sense? Instinct? Whatever works?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk ...how would I as a neutral third party be able to objectively judge whether your morals are more valid than Hitlers? What criteria or which standards should I use? Yours? Hitlers? Societies? Common sense? Instinct? Whatever works?
How and why would you be "a neutral third party" who was "judging [my] morals"?
What is this ludicrous scenario?
It comes across as sheer nonsense.
Why would I be concerned - in any way whatsoever - about whether people murdering millions of Jews happened to think of their actions were morally valid? How does that create any moral dilemma for me?
As for you, do you feel unable to condemn the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis - and to be certain in your own mind that condemning it is the right stance to take - without your ancient Hebrew mythology?
Originally posted by FMF How and why would you be "a neutral third party" who was "judging [my] morals"?
What is this ludicrous scenario?
It comes across as sheer nonsense.
Why would I be concerned - in any way whatsoever - about whether people murdering millions of Jews happened to think of their actions were morally valid? How does that create any moral dilemma for me?
As ...[text shortened]... own mind that condemning it is the right stance to take - without your ancient Hebrew mythology?
So are you saying it is common sense that murdering millions of Jews is always wrong under all circumstances?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So are you saying it is common sense that murdering millions of Jews is always wrong under all circumstances?
It's my common sense. It's my moral compass. Why do I have to worry if the people running the gas chambers thought my condemnation of them was "valid" or not?
And here are the two parts of the post you were ostensibly replying to, that you seem to have ignored... here they are again:
Why would I be concerned - in any way whatsoever - about whether people murdering millions of Jews happened to think of their actions were morally valid? How does that create any moral dilemma for me?
As for you, do you feel unable to condemn the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis - and to be certain in your own mind that condemning it is the right stance to take - without your ancient Hebrew mythology?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Let's say for arguments sake there are no moral absolutes, how would I as a neutral third party be able to objectively judge whether your morals are more valid than Hitlers?
How and why would you be "a neutral third party" who was "judging [my] morals"? Explain this scenario.
Originally posted by FMF It's my common sense. It's my moral compass. Why do I have to worry if the people running the gas chambers thought my condemnation of them was "valid" or not?
And here are the two parts of the post you were ostensibly replying to, that you seem to have ignored... here they are again:
Why would I be concerned - in any way whatsoever - about whether people ...[text shortened]... own mind that condemning it is the right stance to take - without your ancient Hebrew mythology?
1.If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else?
2. If what you believe is common sense contradicts what someone else considers to be common sense, then are your judgments really “common sense”?
3. If, however, you say that your common sense morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk 1.If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk 2. If what you believe is common sense contradicts what someone else considers to be common sense, then are your judgments really “common sense”?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk 3. If, however, you say that your common sense morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?
The only practical sense in which I believe and endeavour to ensure my "common sense morals should be followed by others" is with my children, and once they leave my home they will be guided by the moral compass that they have grown up with and developed. I am not asking people like you, for example, to "follow what I believe". It's a straw man for you to suggest that I am.
1.If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else? 2. If what you believe is common sense contradicts what someone else considers to be common sense, then are your judgments really “common sense”? 3. If, however, you say that your common sense morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?
The text above is still dodging what I asked you, which was:
Why would I be concerned - in any way whatsoever - about whether people murdering millions of Jews happened to think of their actions were morally valid? How does that create any moral dilemma for me?
As for you, do you feel unable to condemn the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis - and to be certain in your own mind that condemning it is the right stance to take - without your ancient Hebrew mythology?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk 1.If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else?
2. If what you believe is common sense contradicts what someone else considers to be common sense, then are your judgments really “common sense”?
3. If, however, you say that yo ...[text shortened]... subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?
Shall I bring the question you are repeatedly dodging there, into this thread?
Questions on morality
22 Jan '17 12:48
Back to Top