Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I did not ask you about disagreement over moral codes. Read the question again.

You did. If someone believes that everyone can do as they see fit and still be acting in a morally sound way, then that is clearly a "disagreement over moral codes" between them and me, the implications of which we have already discussed in detail.

If you know of someone in this community who believes both that there are no objective morals and that everyone can do whatever they want to do regardless of morality, then question them about it. Don't keep asking me the same questions over and over and over again as if I haven't discussed my stance on this with you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Someone who believes that there is no objective moral law shouldn't feel that any moral law is obligatory if they are being consistent in their thinking. Whereas someone who does believe in an objective moral law has to believe these laws are obligatory if they are being consistent in their thinking.

If labelling your moral code "objective" makes you feel some obligation to be a good person - if that's the self-geeing up routine you have to employ, and it results in moral behaviour - then good for you, and good for those who benefit from your morally sound behaviour. All the stuff you might type about how objective you are and how consistent your thinking is, does not mean anything to me. Both you and I have moral codes and there is no reason to believe that you are more likely to live up to yours than I am to live up to mine.

Originally posted by @fmf
You did. If someone believes that everyone can do as they see fit and still be acting in a morally sound way, then that is clearly a "disagreement over moral codes" between them and me, the implications of which we have already discussed in detail.

If you know of someone in this community who believes both that there are no objective morals and that everyone ...[text shortened]... ame questions over and over and over again as if I haven't discussed my stance on this with you.

If you assume that there is no objective moral code it means no moral code can be superior to another and your code is no better than Hitlers. You are either too blind to see this or too proud to admit this.

Originally posted by @fmf
If labelling your moral code "objective" makes you feel some obligation to be a good person - if that's the self-geeing up routine you have to employ, and it results in moral behaviour - then good for you, and good for those who benefit from your morally sound behaviour. All the stuff you might type about how objective you are and how consistent your thinking i ...[text shortened]... no reason to believe that you are more likely to live up to yours than I am to live up to mine.

If you believe there is no objective moral standard it means that even with all the stuff you type you can't even convince yourself that your morals are objectively better than Hitlers. Never mind convincing me.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you assume that there is no objective moral code it means no moral code can be superior to another and your code is no better than Hitlers. You are either too blind to see this or too proud to admit this.

From what you know of my moral code (we have discussed it at length with examples and scenarios aplenty) - and bearing in mind that you believe that your morals are superior and that your take on morality is more coherent than mine - do you think that my moral code - in so far as you are familiar with it - is "no better than Hitler's"?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you believe there is no objective moral standard it means that even with all the stuff you type you can't even convince yourself that your morals are objectively better than Hitlers. Never mind convincing me.

Why would I want to argue that my morals are "objectively better" than anyone else's? And what makes you think that I am trying to "convince" you that my morals are better than yours? It's as if you haven't read or understood anything I have posted.

Originally posted by @fmf
From what you know of my moral code (we have discussed it at length with examples and scenarios aplenty) - and bearing in mind that you believe that your morals are superior and that your take on morality is more coherent than mine - do you think that my moral code - in so far as you are familiar with it - is "no better than Hitler's"?

Yes, since I assume that an objective standard does exist, I can compare your moral code and Hitlers to it and make a conclusion based upon that.

Originally posted by @fmf
Why would I want to argue that my morals are "objectively better" than anyone else's? And what makes you think that I am trying to "convince" you that my morals are better than yours? It's as if you haven't read or understood anything I have posted.

So if you could sit down with Hitler you would not try to convince him that your morals are better his?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So if you could sit down with Hitler you would not try to convince him that your morals are better his?

Give me as realistic a scenario as you can in which I meet him and also tell me how much I know about what is happening under his authority. Perhaps I would attempt to kill him. I imagine you would too. What's the scenario?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes, since I assume that an objective standard does exist, I can compare your moral code and Hitlers to it and make a conclusion based upon that.

So with your much self-vaunted, supposedly "objective" moral prism, you are unable to discern a qualitative difference between my moral code Hitler's moral code? That's quite peculiar. Are you sure your moral compass is functioning? It seems dysfunctional.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You are either too blind to see this or too proud to admit this.

I don't think I am blind. I don't think I am being "proud" at all. That seems an odd thing to say. You often use the word "admit" in this way; it's a quasi-punchline you use... He won't admit that he agrees with me.... I have absolutely nothing to "admit" to. We simply disagree.

Originally posted by @fmf
Why would I want to argue that my morals are "objectively better" than anyone else's? And what makes you think that I am trying to "convince" you that my morals are better than yours? It's as if you haven't read or understood anything I have posted.

If you don't believe anyone should follow your morals and everyone is free to do as they please, why couldn't Hitler be free to do as he pleases? Are your morals objectively better than Hitlers? Yes or No?

Originally posted by @fmf
So with your much self-vaunted, supposedly "objective" moral prism, you are unable to discern a qualitative difference between my moral code Hitler's moral code? That's quite peculiar. Are you sure your moral compass is functioning? It seems dysfunctional.

You are the one that can't seem to say that your moral code is better than Hitler's moral code. I have no problem saying it.

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't think I am blind. I don't think I am being "proud" at all. That seems an odd thing to say. You often use the word "admit" in this way; it's a quasi-punchline you use... He won't admit that he agrees with me.... I have absolutely nothing to "admit" to. We simply disagree.

Exactly which means that Hitler also would have nothing to 'admit' since he would simply be disagreeing with you. That is where your morality crumbles.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You are the one that can't seem to say that your moral code is better than Hitler's moral code.

Yes, of course I think my moral code is better than Hitler's. Haven't you read or understood any of my posts? It's you who has the moral prism that renders you unable to differentiate between my code and Hitler's code, or, for that matter, that renders you unable to differentiate between my code and Hitler's code, or, for that matter, the morality of getting angry with a relative the morality of getting angry with a relative and the morality of murdering 6,000,000 people.