Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @fmf
I remember you suddenly discarding the assertion in a conversation much later when it was inconvenient to you, yes.

So you accept that you changed your mind at that point, after months of sticking by the "equally evil" assertion", when you now suggest you started 'correcting' me (as opposed to yourself)? Or not?

Dig yourself deeper. I have sent a link to ...[text shortened]... lves, but I've asked them to say nothing and to, instead, simply observe you and your behaviour.

I explained to you that I believe both actions are sinful and that any sin can separate you from God.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
"Objective moral standards mean that some actions are always immoral no matter the circumstances."

So if someone believed that failing to assault, imprison, or kill homosexuals whenever he encountered them was always immoral, no matter the circumstances, would that be an "objective moral standard"?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I explained to you that I believe both actions are sinful and that any sin can separate you from God.

Only after months and months of sticking by the "equally evil" assertion. Dig away. Some observers have read your own words on the matter. Show your mettle.

Originally posted by @fmf
No, I don't. It's as if you haven't understood a word I have said to you in 2016 and 2017.

That's just because you reject the definition of an objective moral standard. Do you have a better one?

Originally posted by @fmf
So if someone believed that failing to assault, imprison, or kill homosexuals whenever he encountered them was always immoral, no matter the circumstances, would that be an "objective moral standard"?

"Objective moral standards mean that some actions are always immoral no matter the circumstances."

If you have a better defintion feel free to share it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
"Objective moral standards mean that some actions are always immoral no matter the circumstances."

If you have a better defintion feel free to share it.

You can define it any way you want. It's interesting how you sidestepped the content of my post. Here it is again:

So if someone believed that failing to assault, imprison, or kill homosexuals whenever he encountered them was always immoral, no matter the circumstances, would that be an "objective moral standard"?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
That's just because you reject the definition of an objective moral standard. Do you have a better one?

I have written extensively about what I make of your claims that your opinions and moral standards are somehow "objective". You have mostly just ignored what I have written or not understood it. Your habit of misrepresenting others' arguments and stances often appears to be a calculated, deceptive modus operandi. Other times you just appear dim and inattentive. Anyway, I refer you to that extensive writing.

Originally posted by @fmf
You can define it any way you want. It's interesting how you sidestepped the content of my post. Here it is again:

So if someone believed that failing to assault, imprison, or kill homosexuals whenever he encountered them was always immoral, no matter the circumstances, would that be an "objective moral standard"?

They would be believing that objective morals do exist.

Originally posted by @fmf
I have written extensively about what I make of your claims that your opinions and moral standards are somehow "objective". You have mostly just ignored what I have written or not misunderstood it. Your habit of misrepresenting others' arguments and stances often appears to be a calculated, deceptive modus operandi. Other times you just appear dim and inattentive. Anyway, I refer you to that extensive writing.

Maybe you should educate yourself on moral absolutism. It is a philosophical stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Maybe you should educate yourself on moral absolutism. It is a philosophical stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

I don't accept that your superstitious notions and your moral sensibilities are "objective", for the reason I have given ~ reasons which you have refused to engage and have largely ignored or reworded disingenuously. Your moral code is a subjective one. So is mine.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
They would be believing that objective morals do exist.

So you accept that assaulting, imprison, or kill homosexuals whenever he encountered would be morally sound - and "objectively" so - if someone thinks it's "always" morally sound - or are the only morals that are "objective" the ones that coincide with your own?

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't accept that your superstitious notions and your moral sensibilities are "objective", for the reason I have given ~ reasons which you have refused to engage and have largely ignored or reworded disingenuously. Your moral code is a subjective one. So is mine.

Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Are you saying someone who subscribes to 'moral objectivism' is subscribing to a 'subjective' view? 🙄

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Are you saying someone who subscribes to 'moral objectivism' is subscribing to a 'subjective' view? 🙄

What I am saying is that I don't accept that your superstitious notions and your moral sensibilities are "objective", for the reasons I have given. I do not care what labels you attach to yourself. No matter what '-ism" you or I may claim we just so happen to subscribe to, we both have moral codes that are subjective.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

Your moral code completely and absolutely depends solely on social custom or individual acceptance and other stimuli and influences you have absorbed from your human environment in a way that is unique to you. You unilaterally declaring this effect that it has had on you to be supernatural or magical in nature is meaningless and does not alter its nature. It's merely pretentious rhetoric.

Originally posted by @fmf
What I am saying is that I don't accept that your superstitious notions and your moral sensibilities are "objective", for the reason I have given. I do not care what labels you attach to yourself. No matter what '-ism" you or I may claim we just so happen to subscribe to, we both have moral codes that are subjective.

Well then it seems your knowledge of philosophy is lacking.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/ethics/meta-ethics/objectivism.php