Secular, Progressive AND Anti Abortion

Yakuda

Well-known member
Most people hold firmly to the idea that their moral principles are the only "right" ones. However, holding different moral principles does not necessarily imply destruction.
Keeping another human as a slave is a moral wrong. If that not self evident to you then your opinion is worthless. I suspect you think all "opinions" are equivalent
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Keeping another human as a slave is a moral wrong. If that not self evident to you then your opinion is worthless. I suspect you think all "opinions" are equivalent
Don't be daft. That an opinion is (almost) universally held, does not make it an objective fact. Plenty of moral people, including some of your Founders, thought that slavery was fine. Generally, opinions have changed. But not the Bible incidentally.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
I didn't say they were. I said that morals are opinions. There is a difference.
No they aren't
Don't be daft. That an opinion is (almost) universally held, does not make it an objective fact. Plenty of moral people, including some of your Founders, thought that slavery was fine. Generally, opinions have changed. But not the Bible incidentally.
I love how you people people play word games. It's how you have come this far in destroying western culture. BTW Simpletons point to biblical "slavery" and claim that it condones what we know as slavery.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
No they aren't

I love how you people people play word games. It's how you have come this far in destroying western culture. BTW Simpletons point to biblical "slavery" and claim that it condones what we know as slavery.
You are being ridiculous. Morality being an opinion does not make disagreement obligatory. It just means that agreement is not obligatory. You are adamant that morality is not based on individual subjective opinion. What then is it based on, and more importantly, what evidence do you have?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Most people hold firmly to the idea that their moral principles are the only "right" ones. However, holding different moral principles does not necessarily imply destruction.
Ah, now you have said principles in relation to opinion. So we need to discuss the principles.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Don't be daft. That an opinion is (almost) universally held, does not make it an objective fact. Plenty of moral people, including some of your Founders, thought that slavery was fine. Generally, opinions have changed. But not the Bible incidentally.
There is more slavery today than ever, so the principle its not almost universal.
Now you have introduced 'moral people'. Having said you think its an opinion, how do you know other share your view of the moral people you refer to?
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
You are being ridiculous. Morality being an opinion does not make disagreement obligatory. It just means that agreement is not obligatory. You are adamant that morality is not based on individual subjective opinion. What then is it based on, and more importantly, what evidence do you have?
It's based on the self evident fact that no one voluntarily wants to be a slave. Discussing this with moral relativists is like talking to a wall.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
It's based on the self evident fact that no one voluntarily wants to be a slave. Discussing this with moral relativists is like talking to a wall.
That was presumably also true back in the days when slavery was regarded as both normal and moral. Attitudes to morality change not only within societies and between societies but in a single person throughout their lifetime. There is clear obvious evidence that attitudes to morality are personal, subjective and based on opinion. Your "self-evident fact" reveals nothing at all.
 

BMS

Well-known member
That was presumably also true back in the days when slavery was regarded as both normal and moral.
Always been immoral for some and moral for others. It was Christians who primarily campaigned for the slave trade to be abolished whilst other Christians supported it. Who was right? The New Testament says dont become slaves if you can help it, if you are a slave seek your freedom if you cant and slave traders wont inherit the Kingdom of God. More slaves now than ever, though more often than not sex slaves these days.


I see why you put people on ignore, so you don't have to answer to your errors
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
That was presumably also true back in the days when slavery was regarded as both normal and moral. Attitudes to morality change not only within societies and between societies but in a single person throughout their lifetime. There is clear obvious evidence that attitudes to morality are personal, subjective and based on opinion. Your "self-evident fact" reveals nothing at all.
It was never moral. Again moral relativism is as evil as leftism
 

Temujin

Well-known member
It was never moral. Again moral relativism is as evil as leftism
Moral absolutism is as evil as fascism.
In my opinion of course. Keep posting your platitudes, since you clearly have nothing to back up your nonsense.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Moral absolutism is as evil as fascism.
In my opinion of course. Keep posting your platitudes, since you clearly have nothing to back up your nonsense.
Slavery is immoral even if you think you have a good reason to engage in it. The idiocy of moral relativism is unparalleled
 

BMS

Well-known member
Moral absolutism is as evil as fascism.
In my opinion of course. Keep posting your platitudes, since you clearly have nothing to back up your nonsense.
Why would moral absolutism be any different from.fascism or marxism?
And why would a moral absolutism be evil if it was free for people to believe, which doesnt happen under fascism or marxism?

What might be clear to you is not clear to most others.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Slavery is immoral even if you think you have a good reason to engage in it. The idiocy of moral relativism is unparalleled
It is immoral because you think it is, as do I. There is no cosmic rule that makes it immoral. The lunacy of moral absolutism is stupendous.
 

BMS

Well-known member
It is immoral because you think it is, as do I. There is no cosmic rule that makes it immoral. The lunacy of moral absolutism is stupendous.
There is a cosmic rule that says it. And that is why a particular moral absolutism.is so.good
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
True, but irrelevant, since murder is a legal term, independent of morals.
And Since "Morals" (and "Ethics") as well as "Legalistics" are purely human inventions based only on the constantly shifting Preferences du jour of societies, they're WORTHLESS in terms of any Absolute values.

Whether society does or doesn't consider killing babies to be legal and moral (and even praiseworthy), has no bearing on God's evaluation of the practice.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
And Since "Morals" (and "Ethics") as well as "Legalistics" are purely human inventions based only on the constantly shifting Preferences du jour of societies, they're WORTHLESS in terms of any Absolute values.
I quite agree. Try telling this to @Yakuda. If course the very notion of "Absolute values" is nonsense.

Whether society does or doesn't consider killing babies to be legal and moral (and even praiseworthy), has no bearing on God's evaluation of the practice.
Also true. Whether one believes in God or not, in practice all we have are human ideas forged in human societies, mutable, flawed and sometimes unworkable. The never ending, never changing, never existing values of an imaginary God are of no use whatsoever.
 
Top