It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Before I begin this thread, I would like to begin by asking anyone that participates to please first acknowledge what your system of morality you hold to.
The problem with the Moral sceptics argument is as soon as he poses it I steal his wallet cell phone and keys. When he gets upset rather than tolerate my moral opinion it will show that he lives inconsistently with his belief.
If moral relativism and moral skepticism is false then their negation must be true.
Moral knowledge does not exist a person could not recommend any moral action above another which means that it could not be said that one must be tolerant of others’ moral opinions.
When he gets upset rather than tolerate my moral opinion it will show that he lives inconsistently with his belief.
If he was truly a moral skeptic he wouldn't get angry or disapprove of my actions because he could make no judgment as to the thief's moral actions or beliefs.
i refuse to tell you what my position is - because i suspect you are following a script
i can show that there are no moral absolutes , with the following : if you are claiming a code of moral absolutes , then the directive : do not do "A" , or "A" is wrong must be inviolate for it to be a moral abaolute when you quantify it with the clause : do not do " A " unless " X" . or " A" is wrong , unless "X"
then "A" is no longer an absolute it is a relative position subject to modifiers ie "X"
Which is more reasonable? The God of all creation defies all of what mortal men with a human intellect see as "reasonable".
I'm assuming you're referring to the epistemology of morality as opposed to 'how I think of' morality?
This claim does not refute moral scepticism, since one can raise doubts about common moral beliefs without giving up their own system of morality
For the record I believe that as far as our life spans are concerned there are 'objective' (moral) values for most members of most species in some way or sense.
. As situations become more complex they get more relative in that there is more possible 'acceptable' answers and probably more 'wrong' ones as well.
Celestial moral absolutism begins to fall apart for me when we realize that we can condition people to be evil or simply remove or disable part of their brain to that end
I'm a moral nihilist.
No, just no. The fact that people can project their own insecurities onto the universe doesn't make them true. I'm not even going to go so far as to say moral relativism has any merit.
Moral knowledge does not exist a person could not recommend any moral action above another which means that it could NOT be said that one must be tolerant of others’ moral opinions.
If I were to look at the planet earth and assume that there is an absolute morality based on gods will, I would believe that they have a wicked sense of humor.
Is there benefit in absolute morality governed by ancient doctrine?
I would go to say that they are developed through evolutionary processes, by which outsiders (such as psychopaths), who cannot cognitively produce a basic morality, have not done too well for themselves.
Things like, "Is homosexuality appropriate," or "Should we eat shellfish," exist in a large moral grey area of "victimless vices," and I believe these should never, ever, ever be proscribed by any government, although people should be able to voluntarily follow these if they so choose. So, these things fall under "moral relativism."
I don't believe there's any such thing as empirical morality. If there were, we'd see it demonstrated in the natural universe.
Can you give me an example of something that is objectively and empirically immoral for all things, always, under all circumstances?