Pants-of-dog wrote:For the third or fourth time, my claim was that you can criticise a moral norm regardless if the moral norm is objective or subjective.
On what basis? Your ability to type?
Because so long as that critique rests on an objective basis, you are making an objective moral value judgement,
by definition.......unless of course, you deny these judgements have any moral content, in which case, what the fuck are you even talking about?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since this is all based on your misunderstanding if my claim, I will simply ignore it.
You claimed that your consideration of the consequence of harm was not utilitarian (an objective moral system); hence this section you are ignoring is a salient rebuttal that you have just dismissed without warrant. Thus, the point stands unchallenged.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, your opinion on the meaningfulness of my example is not a contradiction of my claim.
You are not denying that Christian morals can still be criticised if all morals are relative. You just think my example is not a big deal.
I am using the term
"meaningless" in the actual dialectical sense.
That is, you have not offered any REAL or
meaningful critique, because critiques by definition offer a "criticism" of something negative in the argument; however, you have only stated that moral systems often advocate for physical harm, but as that is not something under contention, but merely a matter of fact, and given that you have no moral grounds for saying that physical harm is even bad or wrong to begin with, your "so-called" critique is really
NO CRITIQUE AT ALL. For it to be so, you would need to demonstrate how causing harm is bad, but that would require an appeal to objective standard for making such a moral judgment, a standard which you have denied to even exists as a proponent of moral relativism.
Please go home and quit embarrassing yourself here.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that even subjective moral codes are capable of using objective criteria.
Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, how many objective moralities are there?
There are many "schools of moral philosophy" and "ethical systems" that appeal to some criteria outside of subjective preference.
However, there is only ONE absolute moral system that is both objective and lacking in logical error.
That would be my own.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am simply using the words of the Bible.
Oh really?
Please show me the text where it says this EXACT phrase:
"Thou shalt stone teenagers for back-talking." Which is what you said. No.
What you said was your own interpretive paraphrase of that law.
Not the law itself. Pants-of-dog wrote:We could use the one about parapets if you want. Did you know the Bible says that you have to have one, in order to avoid the guilt of bloodshed if someone falls off your roof?
Sure, the case law requires that people who entertain others at dangerous heights should have railing. I believe this and practice it.
When I build a deck, I put on railing; however, with steep-pitch roofs in PA that law obviously does not apply, as the law was implemented to prevent liability against homeowners if a guest were to fall.