Premise: Objective morals do not exist

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.

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. BUMP for dj2becker.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's not a dodge. If you don't have any moral dilemmas to pose in your effort to scrutinize my application or moral principles, then it is you who is dodging. Do you disagree with the three broad principles I laid out, or do you disagree with them? Is there something missing from them?

Well since you don't believe in moral absolutes it is safe to assume that there definitely are scenarios whereby you would trade these principles, so basically you only uphold them when it suits you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Well since you don't believe in moral absolutes it is safe to assume that there definitely are scenarios whereby you would trade these principles, so basically you only uphold them when it suits you.

When we discussed killing before, both you and I said we'd kill if we couldn't avoid it. That's just one example. You also said you'd always try not to lie if you could avoid it. Same as me. Your notions of "sin" aside, the source and purpose of your morality are pretty much the same as mine. Such differences as there are, are simply a function of the fact that we are two different people/moral beings.

Originally posted by @fmf
When we discussed killing before, both you and I said we'd kill if we couldn't avoid it. That's just one example. You also said you'd always try not to lie if you could avoid it. Same as me. Your notions of "sin" aside, the source and purpose of your morality are pretty much the same as mine. Such differences as there are, are simply a function of the fact that we are two different people/moral beings.

So what rationale do you have to explain that time plus matter plus energy equals FMF upholding 3 moral principles that he would never trade if he can help it?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So what rationale do you have to explain that time plus matter plus energy equals FMF upholding 3 moral principles that he would never trade if he can help it?

Try again. You sound like you're fumbling. Ask your question calmly and clearly.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Well since you don't believe in moral absolutes it is safe to assume that there definitely are scenarios whereby you would trade these principles, so basically you only uphold them when it suits you.

Morality works more or less the same way for both of us. We both explained - for example - that we would use lethal force to protect our children from mortal threat if avoiding doing so was not possible. We are not all that different in this respect. Your preoccupation with there being some supernatural element to all this is merely an upshot of your socialization. You slapping the label "objective" of your moral principles has no effect and adds no gravitas whatsoever.

Originally posted by @fmf
Try again. You sound like you're fumbling. Ask your question calmly and clearly.

Your dodge is noted. The question is clear to me and I'm totally calm. What part didn't you understand?

Originally posted by @fmf
Morality works more or less the same way for both of us. We both explained - for example - that we would use lethal force to protect our children from mortal threat if avoiding doing so was not possible. We are not all that different in this respect. Your preoccupation with there being some supernatural element to all this is merely an upshot of your socializat ...[text shortened]... ng the label "objective" of your moral principles has no effect and adds no gravitas whatsoever.

So we both agree that we would avoid using lethal force if it were possible. Why would we do that if we didn't believe in the sanctity of life? How can we believe in the sanctity of life if it is simply the product of time matter and energy?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So we both agree that we would avoid using lethal force if it were possible. Why would we do that if we didn't believe that life was precious? How can life be precious if it is simply the product of time matter and energy?

I do believe life is precious - haven't you been reading my posts? Why do we think life is precious? Because we are human beings I suppose. Because of our faculties and capacities. Because we are sentient. Because we are social creatures. Because we have evolved in a way that enables us to survive in groups. Because standards and taboos with regard to our interactions make sense in making the communal living a success and allowing individuals to flourish in that environment.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Your dodge is noted. The question is clear to me and I'm totally calm. What part didn't you understand?

Just reword it unless it was meant as some kind of pastiche of inarticulacy.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So which principle would take precedence over not damaging people, not deceiving them or not coercing them? Or would you agree that these 3 principles (among others) aught never be violated? Or is it simply a matter of you applying these principles when you so prefer and not applying them when you don't?

Do you agree with the three broad principles I laid out, or do you disagree with them? Is there something missing from them?

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you agree with the three broad principles I laid out, or do you disagree with them? Is there something missing from them?

Yes I do. Do you think these principles should apply to all people at all times? In other words if someone were not to abide by them would they be doing something wrong in your opinion?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes I do. Do you think these principles should apply to all people at all times? In other words if someone were not to abide by them would they be doing something wrong in your opinion?

I have already explained how our moral compasses work and how we apply them. Why are you asking me about it again? It's as if you haven't read or understood what I have posted in any of our discussions about morality.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes I do. Do you think these principles should apply to all people at all times? In other words if someone were not to abide by them would they be doing something wrong in your opinion?

Well, you said "So we both agree that we would avoid using lethal force if it were possible." So, presumably, we also both agree that there are, therefore, times when it is morally correct to use lethal force, and that, furthermore, the process of evaluating a threat and the circumstances, choosing an appropriate and morally sound response -and in so doing trying to avoid the use of lethal force if circumstances allow - indicates that one's moral compass - as a guide to our behaviour - is in good working order.

FMF: Do you agree with the three broad principles I laid out?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes I do. Do you think these principles should apply to all people at all times?

Like me, and everybody else, when it came to morality, you learned, deduced and internalized stuff from your environment, you adapted it, or reacted against it. You mimicked what seemed to work; you rejected what didn't. You were exposed to information and perspectives, some of it in competition with each other. It made you see things in certain ways. It even made you certain about certain things, whether it be about supernatural notions, about political things like Marxism or apartheid, homosexuality, culture, whatever.

Aside for your hopes of being immortal - as some kind of far-fetched quid pro quo reward for thinking some superstitious stuff and worshipping some magical being that inhabits your imagination - it all boils down to the same source and purpose for your moral code as everybody else's. It's a product of your socialization and your human nature and faculties. It's personal. It's unique. It's a tool, a guide, a facility, a capacity. It's not "a law".

You can pronounce your own sensibilities "objective" till you go blue in the face, and do so in your chosen persona's pretentious, juvenile and trollish way - go for it if it floats your boat - but it will not alter the facts of the mater about the real life source, nature and purpose of morality.