I can't believe i have to argue this point but i'll give evidence for it and you must disprove it.
LC, you need to stop acting incredulous everytime someone disagrees with you.
You have totally ignored my point about your argument and instead are trying to cling on to some weak logical fallacy, The point still stands un-refuted you have no moral ground to say child rape and murder is wrong to a majority group who want to implement this, you would have to follow the zeitgeist and accept their collective subjective moral standards that rape and murder is now fine ?
My bolding above. LC, stop throwing a fit because I pointed out a fallacy in your argument. You never made your point to begin with because you don't seem to understand subjective morality. You keep talking like objective morality exists because it is too frightening or shocking for subjective morality to exist. That does not make a point. That is a fallacy. And yes, other cultures have believed child rape is right, and I believe it is wrong.
That is the nature of subjective morality. How many times do I need to repeat myself?
By the authority of most philosophers and ethicists in the world, they believe that objective moral values exist, you are in the minority and are rebelling from the standard so you have to prove your position...the rebel always have to prove his cause. Prove its not wrong !
You are using yet another fallacy: argument from authority. I need real evidence that objective morality exists.
Please stop using fallacies in your argument if you want to get your points across!
Not even close to a strawman, what was the purpose in citing all these examples ? if not to show that other cultures practiced these things and didn't see anything wrong with it ? you will have to state why you cited these references then.
LC, I already did state why I cited these references. They are examples of subjective morality, a concept which you seem to have a hard time grasping.
(btw just because it happened doesn't mean they were happy about doing it, and thought it was moral)
*Facepalm* So what are you trying to imply? That they were unhappy and they forced themselves to do something they thought was wrong? LC, I need proof.
I do but you ignore it each and every time. look below
LC, I need for your premise(s) to make sense before I accept it as true.
According to what standard ? on one hand you argue for the acceptance of collective subjective moral value system in which the society decides their own moral code and on the other hand you want to condemn another society as morally wrong ?
Again, something can be right to someone else and wrong to me. That is the nature of subjective morality. Every culture has their own standards for what is right. I gave clear examples of that. You just don’t seem to understand the concept of subjective morality.
You can only condemn them if there is a standard of rightness and wrongness that transends individual opinion which you want to dismiss so you dont get to codemn any other society or people group, and if you do based on what grounds your own personal subjective moral values ? welll what about theirs ? who says who is good and whose is bad ? ….
As you have shown child sacrifice was common place in the ANE, you seem to be able to accept the actual killing of the children by envoking the subjective moral value card to that particular culture but when it comes to God not killing the a child you seem to have a problem ?
That’s the point! Any culture can condemn or support whatever action they choose, as they have done throughout history! There is no objective right or wrong, but you keep arguing like there is, as if that is self-evident to everyone. It is not. People (in different times and cultures) have different opinions on what is good and bad.
Why would your Bible God be any more right than them? Even he (as a fictional character) has demonstrated that his morality is subjective, as I pointed out with Abraham and Isaac. If we don’t get to kill, why does he? He smote many in the Bible. Look at the Flood. Are you meaning to tell me that of the world population, only Noah’s family deserved to live? With regard to killing, it seems that God demonstrates “do as I say, not as I do,” and even his morality is therefore subjective.
Exactly ! so whats your problem with the above ? stop acting like there are objective moral values.
*Facepalm* ERROR: Failure to communicate…
LC, I am acting like there are subjective moral values. You are failing to understand that.
As a byproduct of your subjective moral values it means you dont get to call God a moral monster anymore are you really willing to give up that ?
Strawman, LC. I am not calling God a moral monster. I am saying that even HIS morality is subjective. I was also asking YOU a question, which you failed to answer:
I also have to ask: if you think child-killing is objectively wrong, why support a God who asked a man to kill his son and essentially went, “Psych!” at the last minute.
five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. (taken from Shenvi)
1.The existence of objective moral values explains the near-universal existence of basic standards of morality, even those that disfavor personal or genetic benefit.
Prove it. I don’t see any “near-universal existence of basic standards of morality.” In fact, I have shown otherwise.
2. The existence of objective moral values explains why those who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists (like you Curiousgirl)
I never acted like objective morality exists. Again, a failure to communicate on your part. I have been supporting subjective morality the whole time.
Prove that those who claim subjective morality act as if objective morality still exists, if you want to keep that claim.
3.The existence of objective moral valeus explains the nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
Prove that we have “the nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.” You have yet to give proof.
4.The existence of objective moral values explains why the majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.
Another fallacy: argument from authority. Why don’t you give your own proof for the existence of objective moral facts?
5. The existence of objective moral values explains why naturalists (e.g. Sam Harris ot Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world.
OK, that just looks like regurgitated knowledge that you did not come up with on your own at all. The naturalists can “affirm the existence of objective moral facts” all they want, but YOU still need to provide your own logical reasons for the existence of objective moral values instead of hiding behind others.
Also, look at my bolding above. Are you trying to make your own argument fail?
Give your own evidence to why only subjective moral values exist. I'm not the only one claiming here.
I provided evidence. You are essentially saying, “Nuh-uh!”
