Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @fmf
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.

Dodge noted.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Dodge noted.

No. There's no dodge. I suggest you just go and take a look at when we discussed this before. I am not going to repeat myself here at your behest.

Originally posted by @fmf
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 m ...[text shortened]... ill not alter the facts of the mater about the real life source, nature and purpose of morality.

This is your dilemma. If it’s not a law then none of it is obligatory then everyone can just do as they see fit. Whether it be killing millions of people or torturing a baby.

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?

The 30 or so words you typed above were ostensibly in reply to this:

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.

A reply to what I posted would be interesting. Your "reply" was nothing more than yet another example of ignore-and-ask-a-different-question.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
This is your dilemma. If it’s not a law then none of it is obligatory then everyone can just do as they see fit. Whether it be killing millions of people or torturing a baby.

I don't see how "everyone can just do as they see fit". Aren't people subject to criminal/civil laws that make things like "torturing a baby for fun" illegal? I don't face any dilemma whatsoever as a result of you declaring stuff you happen to believe in to be "objective" and some kind of a "law". You are not creating a dilemma for me or for anyone else.

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't see how "everyone can just do as they see fit". Aren't people subject to criminal/civil laws that make things like "torturing a baby for fun" illegal? I don't face any dilemma whatsoever as a result of you declaring stuff you happen to believe in to be "objective" and some kind of a "law". You are not creating a dilemma for me or for anyone else.

If there is no unwritten law then it means you can do whatever you please as long as you don't get caught.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If there is no unwritten law then it means you can do whatever you please as long as you don't get caught.

The existence of "laws" are frequently - although not always - rooted in the application or enforcement of moral principles. But our moral principles are, as I have described and explained, a capacity - an integral part of our human nature - and a set of guidelines, not a "law". I haven't said "you can do whatever you please as long as you don't get caught", so if you want to argue with whoever said that, address them about it and not me.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If [morality is] not a law then none of it is obligatory....

You spent most of your life - 24 years - being psychologically abused, intellectually deprived and spiritually brainwashed by your parents and the cult you were trapped in, so you now seeking to lecture me on how your personal moral sensibilities - whatever they may happen to be - are somehow, by their very nature, "obligatory" for me, is a bit like rhetorical white noise as far as I am concerned.

If it’s not a law then none of it is obligatory then everyone can just do as they see fit.

Put "torturing babies for fun" aside for a moment. Do you think your personal views on the morality of homosexual sex create something "obligatory" or some kind of "law" for homosexuals?

Originally posted by @fmf
The existence of "laws" are frequently - although not always - rooted in the application or enforcement of moral principles. But our moral principles are, as I have described and explained, a capacity - an integral part of our human nature - and a set of guidelines, not a "law". I haven't said "you can do whatever you please as long as you don't get caught", so if you want to argue with whoever said that, address them about it and not me.

The word 'principle' means 'fundamental truth' or 'moral law'. Maybe you should look for a better word because the way you use it doesn't make sense and is self contradictory. I suggest you use the words 'personal preference' instead. That would make perfect sense in the context of what you are saying. You can say that your personal moral preference is not to torture babies for fun but you cannot say that the act is inherently evil because that would require objective morals to exist.

Originally posted by @fmf
You spent most of your life - 24 years - being psychologically abused, intellectually deprived and spiritually brainwashed by your parents and the cult you were trapped in, so you now seeking to lecture me on how your personal moral sensibilities - whatever they may happen to be - are somehow, by their very nature, "obligatory" for me, is a bit like rhetorical ...[text shortened]... morality of homosexual sex create something "obligatory" or some kind of "law" for homosexuals?

If God does exist and has revealed His laws through scripture (take the ten commandments for example), surely it means that His laws are obligatory for all people?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The word 'principle' means 'fundamental truth' or 'moral law'. Maybe you should look for a better word because the way you use it doesn't make sense and is self contradictory. I suggest you use the words 'personal preference' instead. You can say that your personal moral preference is not to torture babies for fun but you cannot say that the act is inherently evil because that would require objective morals to exist.

Your "moral principles" are rooted in your personal preferences and your personal synthesis of your experiences/environments in the same way as mine are. We arrived at having our moral compasses in the same way, for the same reasons, and for the same purpose ~ your superstitious notions about "sin" aside.

There's nothing "objective" or "absolute" about the stuff you say you believe, just as there isn't about what I believe. Indeed, you agreed with my moral principles [by which I mean a set of propositions that serve as a foundation to govern my behaviour in so far as it affects other people.], so that's good - although I'm not overly concerned by whatever pompous, self-aggrandizing, adjective-strewn route that brought you to that agreement.

If you really do need to cite ancient Hebrew texts in order to be able to discern and declare that "torturing babies for fun is evil", and if you sincerely believe that I cannot without being a subscriber to your superstitious beliefs, then I would personally see that as a terrible weakness in your credibility as an adult moral agent... but if it prevents you from "torturing babies for fun" then I suppose that's good.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If God does exist and has revealed His laws through scripture (take the ten commandments for example), surely it means that His laws are obligatory for all people?

I have no credible reason to believe that your supernatural lawgiver god figure exists, so your question is a mere gimmick. You do believe in him though, and you reckon he makes "laws". If your god figure revealed that he wanted his believers to torture babies for fun, would that mean it'd be obligatory for all people?

Originally posted by @fmf
Your "moral principles" are rooted in your personal preferences and your personal synthesis of your experiences/environments in the same way as mine are. We arrived at having our moral compasses in the same way, for the same reasons, and for the same purpose ~ your superstitious notions about "sin" aside.

There's nothing "objective" or "absolute" about the ...[text shortened]... oral agent... but if it prevents you from "torturing babies for fun" then I suppose that's good.

How in your mind can people agree essentially on what 'good' and 'evil' is if there is no objective standard for good and evil?

It would be like asking a question that has no right answer and expecting the vast majority of people to agree on the same answer being right.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If it’s not a law then none of it is obligatory then everyone can just do as they see fit. Whether it be killing millions of people or torturing a baby.

What is it you seek to make "obligatory" for me ~ in terms of my behaviour and interactions with others ~ about which you think my moral principles don't already create, for me, the sense of obligation that governs me?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How in your mind can people agree essentially on what 'good' and 'evil' is if there is no objective standard for good and evil?

Because of the stuff I wrote when I explained the nature of morality - it's source, nature and purpose, which - judging by this question of yours - you didn't read, didn't understand, or read it, understood it, but you are now ignoring it.