-->
@disgusted
I'm not interested.Try responding honestly to posts 283, 286, 288, 290 and 293
Ramshutu’s Razor
Posts
Total:
315
-->
@keithprosser
I don't have a "moral framework" - what i have is a rag-tag collection of instincts and intuitions that result in me judging some things as good and other things as bad.
If you had no moral framework (what is the best in such a system and if you have no best how can you ever be sure you have something good?) then how could you make a moral distinction? You throw around moral distinctions like "good" but why is your opinion a measure of good?
Are you saying that nothing is any better than anything else, morally speaking and that it all depends on our instincts and likes versus dislikes?
If Hitler had the "moral instinct" to kill 6 million Jews what difference does it make if he can and does do it? Nothing if it is a personal instinct because your instincts are perhaps different than his instincts. It only makes a difference in a world where instincts are a prime motivation if you happen to be one of those Hitler chooses to eliminate. Then it seems that some things are truly wrong.
You confuse likes with what is "good" or "right", IMO.
An evolutionary worldview can't explain why something ought to be, just why it is for the reason that what does it matter what one biological bag of atoms does to another? It is just how that biochemical bag of atoms reacts. Your composition reacts one way, Hitler's another.
I don't know, but I firmly believe, humans evolved a 'sense of morality' because it encourages behaviour suitable for a eusoial species.
Suitable in whose opinion? Those who have the ability to control and decide the outcome of others? What makes that right? Kim Jong-un has the power to exterminate those whom he thinks did not perform to his standards in the last round of negotiations with the USA. Once you imply "right" or "wrong" to change from an is to an ought in which your worldview has a hard time defending or justifying.
Not only this but how do you ever get to better when the "right" is always changing and shifting according to who is in power. Logically if there is no fixed address for "right" the Law of Identity is violated. A does not equal A. A can equal B-Z. Thus, you can never pinpoint whose subjective preference is the right one in a shifting, evolving standard.
-->
@PGA2.0
Your god dictated what you now wish to claim he said?
The verses about children are actually about himself and have nothing to do with pedophilia, your lies don't work here.
-->
@PGA2.0
It's nice that you admit that you don't have an objective, omniscient standard and measure. Your lies don't work here.
-->
@PGA2.0
You're not capable, your lies don't work here.
-->
@PGA2.0
Suitable in whose opinion? Those who have the ability to control and decide the outcome of others? What makes that right? Kim Jong-un has the power to exterminate those whom he thinks did not perform to his standards in the last round of negotiations with the USA. Once you imply "right" or "wrong" to change from an is to an ought in which your worldview has a hard time defending or justifying.
And how does your subjective worldview defend and justify your opinion?
Not only this but how do you ever get to better when the "right" is always changing and shifting according to who is in power. Logically if there is no fixed address for "right" the Law of Identity is violated. A does not equal A. A can equal B-Z. Thus, you can never pinpoint whose subjective preference is the right one in a shifting, evolving standard.
And your subjective preference is as meaningful as everybody else's, why should anyone give credence to your personal subjective preference?
-->
@disgusted
"Your lies don't work here".
One cannot contradict something that cannot be proven to be real.
-->
@disgusted
It's nice that you admit that you don't have an objective, omniscient standard and measure. Your lies don't work here.
Pot, meet kettle! Look in the mirror.
I never admitted any such thing. I asked what is necessary for objective morality and the whole crew of agnostics and atheists jumped ship as it was sinking without life jackets on. They and you drowned in the avoidance of the question.
-->
@disgusted
Suitable in whose opinion? Those who have the ability to control and decide the outcome of others? What makes that right? Kim Jong-un has the power to exterminate those whom he thinks did not perform to his standards in the last round of negotiations with the USA. Once you imply "right" or "wrong" to change from an is to an ought in which your worldview has a hard time defending or justifying.And how does your subjective worldview defend and justify your opinion?
I look to a necessary objective one to justify it.
Not only this but how do you ever get to better when the "right" is always changing and shifting according to who is in power. Logically if there is no fixed address for "right" the Law of Identity is violated. A does not equal A. A can equal B-Z. Thus, you can never pinpoint whose subjective preference is the right one in a shifting, evolving standard.And your subjective preference is as meaningful as everybody else's, why should anyone give credence to your personal subjective preference?
One ad hom barb deserves another. Not as meaningless as yours.
-->
@PGA2.0
What is needed for objective morality is a set of rules that don't come from any mind, look up the word objective. You don't have it because your morality is dictated to you by the minds of ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages.
Run along now your ignorant views are becoming more absurd with every post.
I look to a necessary objective one to justify it.
That doesn't exist, your ignorant, primitive, superstitious, savages opinions are not objective.
One ad hom barb deserves another. Not as meaningless as yours.
Oh absolutely as meaningless as mine if you want to claim that objective morality exists because it doesn't and you have no objective morality that you can point at. That's why you run away EVERY time you are asked to present such.
-->
@disgusted
What is needed for objective morality is a set of rules that don't come from any mind, look up the word objective. You don't have it because your morality is dictated to you by the minds of ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages.
You sound like the American media. Say it long enough and you, through repetition, eventual will convince those who can't think for themselves.
Run along now your ignorant views are becoming more absurd with every post.
After I responded in Post 298 you have nothing to say. You spout out all kinds of hot assertions that when replied to you ignore and run on to something else. Pathetic waste of time responding to you.
I look to a necessary objective one to justify it.That doesn't exist, your ignorant, primitive, superstitious, savages opinions are not objective.
Folks, Disgusted says it ain't so, therefore it must be the case since he admitted he is absolutely certain there is no objective morality. Thus, at least one person is!
One ad hom barb deserves another. Not as meaningless as yours.Oh absolutely as meaningless as mine if you want to claim that objective morality exists because it doesn't and you have no objective morality that you can point at. That's why you run away EVERY time you are asked to present such.
What are you saying? It is all meaningless to me.
So you can't say that raping children for fun is objectively immoral to you since there is no objectivity to morality? I pity you.
-->
@PGA2.0
So you can't say that raping children for fun is objectively immoral to you since there is no objectivity to morality? I pity you.
Thinking that raping children for any reason other than fun is objectively moral proves you are a sick fuk with moral standard at all. I pity you.
-->
@disgusted
So you can't say that raping children for fun is objectively immoral to you since there is no objectivity to morality? I pity you.Thinking that raping children for any reason other than fun is objectively moral proves you are a sick fuk with moral standard at all. I pity you.
Now you are putting words in my mouth and making it personal with your rude, vulgar name calling. I never said nor do I believe such an act is morally right. It is reprehensible. I believe it is objectively morally wrong.
IMO, I would say it is sick that you can't distinguish some things as objectively wrong no matter what anyone else thinks. If it is not objectively wrong (and you say there is no such thing as objective morals) then it is a matter of subjective opinion. IOW's some prefer the act and others do not. Now that is sick that anyone would think it morally permissible. I'm through with our discussions.
-->
@disgusted
Thinking that raping children for any reason other than fun is objectively moral proves you are a sick fuk with moral standard at all.
Your wording makes it sounds like you think raping children for fun is objectively moral, but doing it for any other reasons is immoral.
-->
@Stronn
@golfer
So you can't say that raping children for fun is objectively immoral
The corollary of which is that you think raping children for any reason other than fun is objectively moral It was you after all who set the parameter of "fun".