Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
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.

You keep saying this kind of thing over and over again. For my reaction to this line of 'argument' - upon which you rely so heavily and seem to feel the need to repeat ad nauseam - I refer you to our various discussions back in 2016. Instead of paraphrasing or characterizing what I have said - like you are doing on this thread - go back to when we had those discussions and use the Reply & Quote feature to address my own writing about my own ideas.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
...your opinion would be just as valid as Hitler's and Pol Pot's.

You asked me about Hitler before (and I think Pol Pot too). I refer you to what I said on those occasions.

Originally posted by @fmf
You keep saying this kind of thing over and over again. For my reaction to this line of 'argument' - upon which you rely so heavily and seem to feel the need to repeat ad nauseam - I refer you to our various discussions back in 2016. Instead of paraphrasing or characterizing what I have said - like you are doing on this thread - go back to when we had those discussions and use the Reply & Quote feature to address my own writing about my own ideas.

I was not characterizing what you have said, I was merely making an observation.

Originally posted by @fmf
You asked me about Hitler before (and I think Pol Pot too). I refer you to what I said on those occasions.

You have admitted on this thread that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and that you believe Hitler was entitled to his opinions and so you should as that is the logical outworking of your beliefs.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I was not characterizing what you have said, I was merely making an observation.

I have disagreed with your "observation" and given you reasons why. Why not use Reply & Quote and address my actual words.Why not address the reasons I have given. Merely repeating your "observation" over and over again is not much of a contribution to our conversation.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You have admitted on this thread that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and that you believe Hitler was entitled to his opinions and so you should as that is the logical outworking of your beliefs.

"Admitted" what? Gosh. It's not as if you've prised something out of a reluctant poster. You've known about how I separate thoughts from actions for the better part of 2 years. I've made no secret of it. Surely we both agree that people can have whatever opinions they want? Morality is about actions and interactions. Thoughtcrimes are in the realm of "sin".

Originally posted by @fmf
I have disagreed with your "observation" and given you reasons why. Why not use Reply & Quote and address my actual words.Why not address the reasons I have given. Merely repeating your "observation" over and over again is not much of a contribution to our conversation.

With relativism you have the luxury of shifting the goal posts whenever it suits you and the luxury of lying to get out of a tight spot. So that's a double bonus I guess.

Originally posted by @fmf
"Admitted" what? Gosh. It's not as if you've prised something out of a reluctant poster. You've known about how I separate thoughts from actions for the better part of 2 years. I've made no secret of it. Surely we both agree that people can have whatever opinions they want? Morality is about actions and interactions. Thoughtcrimes are in the realm of "sin".

Morality for you is also just like shooting randomly and then calling whatever you hit the target. No one can argue with that.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
With relativism you have the luxury of shifting the goal posts whenever it suits you and the luxury of lying to get out of a tight spot. So that's a double bonus I guess.

Copy paste an example of me "shifting the goal posts". I believe I have been consistent all the way back to when I started posting on this forum and also since I started engaging with you when you were posting as Fetchmyjunk. Show me your 'favourite'-gotcha! instance of me "shifting the goal posts".

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Morality for you is also just like shooting randomly and then calling whatever you hit the target.

Go back to the threads where we discussed the source, nature and purpose of morality in detail, and copy paste some of the bits of my posts that you believe most clearly demonstrate that, for me, morality is just like shooting randomly and then calling whatever I hit the target.

Originally posted by @fmf
Copy paste an example of me "shifting the goal posts". I believe I have been consistent all the way back to when I started posting on this forum and also since I started engaging with you when you were posting Fetchmyjunk. Show me your 'favourite'-gotcha! instance of me "shifting the goal posts".

With no objective moral standard you get to shift the moral goalposts whenever you please and whenever it suits your fancy. That is the nature of moral relativism. There is no absolute right or wrong. Only opinions. The fact that you won't admit this is either evidence of you 'shifting goal posts' around in your mind to justify your beliefs or evidence that you have no idea what moral relativism is.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
With no objective moral standard you get to shift the moral goalposts whenever you please and whenever it suits your fancy. That is the nature of moral relativism. There is no absolute right or wrong. Only opinions. The fact that you won't admit this is either evidence of you 'shifting goal posts' around in your mind to justify your beliefs or evidence that you have no idea what moral relativism is.

Copy paste the post of mine - maybe about rape, killing, lying, coercing, stealing, genocide, child abuse, or some such - which, to your way of thinking, best illustrates me "shifting the goalposts" on a moral issue or moral decision.

Originally posted by @fmf
Copy paste the post of mine - maybe about rape, killing, lying, coercing, stealing, genocide, child abuse, or some such - which, to your way of thinking, best illustrates me "shifting the goalposts" on a moral issue or moral decision.

Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

FMF: There are at least 3 principles that ought never be violated.
FMF: There are no moral absolutes...

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

FMF: There are at least 3 principles that ought never be violated.
FMF: There are no moral absolutes...

Where are the quotes?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
FMF: There are at least 3 principles that ought never be violated.

I think you'll find that what I said was more akin to this:

I strive not to damage people, not to deceive them, not to coerce them. These are the broad moral principles that guide me as I try to navigate the complexities of life and my interactions with other people (there are some other standards and habits that I strive for too).

These moral principles also form the prism through which I perceive the morality and lack of morality I see in the behaviour of others. Morality is a personal thing for every one of us. It is a framework that governs our personal and unique relationships with the human environments we find ourselves in.

The capacity to perceive, internalize and apply morality is an integral - species-defining - part of our humanity. The depth, breadth and resilience of our moral sensibilities are what distinguish and define us as individuals. And the obvious and inevitable variations are an integral part of the human condition.