Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @fmf
Of course he was entitled to his opinions. You are entitled to yours. I am entitled to mine.

And without an objective moral standard it's impossible to tell whose opinion is correct.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
And without an objective moral standard it's impossible to tell whose opinion is correct.

Morality, to my way of thinking, is about action and interaction between people. I don't think it's "impossible" to see the gassing of 6,000,000 people as being a morally wrong action [you're asserting that it's impossible for me to tell that it's wrong, right?]. The "opinions" of some people ~ that it was morally sound to murder Jews, gipsies, homosexuals, disabled people, and leftists ~ don't really matter much if they do not manifest themselves as actions and interactions.

Originally posted by @fmf
Morality, to my way of thinking, is about action and interaction between people. I don't think it's "impossible" to see the gassing of 6,000,000 people as being a morally wrong action [you're asserting that it's impossible for me to tell that it's wrong, right?]. The "opinions" of some people ~ that it was morally sound to murder Jews, gipsies, homosexuals, dis ...[text shortened]... tists ~ don't really matter much if they do not manifest themselves as actions and interactions.

Without an objective moral standard, how do you know that your opinion that it is wrong is the correct opinion?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Without an objective moral standard, how do you know that your opinion that it is wrong is the correct opinion?

You aren't reading what I am saying. Your "opinion", my "opinion", Hitler's "opinion" are not moral issues. Morality pertains to human actions and interactions, not to thoughts. Read what I am posting.

Originally posted by @fmf
You aren't reading what I am saying. Your "opinion", my "opinion", Hitler's "opinion" are not moral issues. Morality pertains to human actions and interactions, not to thoughts. Read what I am posting.

Nonsense. Hypothetical situations can raise moral issues.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Nonsense. Hypothetical situations can raise moral issues.

To my way of thinking, morality governs actions and interactions, not opinions. The notion of opinions being supposedly 'morally wrong' - as in thoughtcrimes - is something that belongs in the realm of "sin" and not morality.

Originally posted by @fmf
To my way of thinking, morality governs actions and interactions, not opinions. The notion of opinions being supposedly 'morally wrong' - as in thoughtcrimes - is something that belongs in the realm of "sin" and not morality.

Ok tell me this then: Without an objective moral standard, how can anyone know for sure that the action (not the thought) of torturing a baby for fun is always wrong?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ok tell me this then: Without an objective moral standard, how can anyone tell that the action (not the thought) of torturing a baby for fun is always wrong?

You've asked me about this before. My take on it has not changed. I refer you to that.

Originally posted by @fmf
You've asked me about this before. My take on it has not changed. I refer you to that.

So you still can't tell. Good to know.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you still can't tell. Good to know.

Of course I 'can tell'. And I have already told you exactly how I 'can tell'. Refer back to that explanation if your interest is genuine.

Originally posted by @fmf
Of course I 'can tell'. And I have already told you exactly how I 'can tell'. Refer back to that explanation if your interest is genuine.

Everyone has a subjective opinion and thus everyone can 'tell'. The part you can't tell is whether or not your opinion is correct.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Everyone has a subjective opinion and thus everyone can 'tell'. The part you can't tell is whether or not your opinion is correct.

If that's what you think, you should go back and look at the discussions we had, because you are mistaken. I feel no need to repeat myself, even in the face of you feeling the need to repeat yourself.

Originally posted by @fmf
If that's what you think, you should go back and look at the discussions we had, because you are mistaken. I feel no need to repeat myself, even in the face of you feeling the need to repeat yourself.

Of course you don't feel the need to repeat yourself because we both know that without an objective moral standard there is no universally correct answer to a moral question.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Of course you don't feel the need to repeat yourself because we both know....

We both know....

The reason I don't feel the need to repeat myself is simply the fact that I explained my side of our disagreement about the nature, source and purpose of morality very clearly the first time around. Almost always, when you start a sentence with "we both know" or "what you refuse to admit", you then simply restate your opinion and completely disregard the reasons I have given for disagreeing with you.

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]We both know....

The reason I don't feel the need to repeat myself is simply the fact that I explained my side of our disagreement about the nature, source and purpose of morality very clearly the first time around. Almost always, when you start a sentence with "we both know" or "what you refuse to admit", you then simply restate your opinion and completely disregard the reasons I have given for disagreeing with you.[/b]

Obviously if there is no objective moral standard you don't have to agree with anyone or ever admit that you are wrong on any moral issue since you are entitled to your opinion and your opinion would be just as valid as Hitler's and Pol Pot's.