So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Mountain Man]

Moral subjectivity is such an untenable position that I have never seen anybody argue in its favor who didn't at some point blatantly contradict himself.

[Tassman]

Stop dodging. The problem is that YOU are acting incoherently when you attempt to impose your moral values - which are entirely subjective,

[Tassman]

Yes you did. You argued that they were barbaric.

No, I

Our society's moral code is based on that same deity.

And yet our laws and moral codes can be traced back to the same roots as those "tribal societies" and are based on the same.

exactlyhttps://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01...-dominionists/

And yet you keep arguing as if morals are objective,

[Sparko]

No, I

You think we can't just go back and actually read what you said? How stupid are you?

You said:

You categorized these societies and countries as barbaric. Not as your opinion but as a moral judgment.

When I claimed that was just YOUR opinion you countered with:
So you denied it was just your opinion and claimed that their morals were inferior which means you are considering your morals to be objectively better than theirs.


Why? Morals are just relative values each society uses right?

exactlyhttps://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01...-dominionists/

I mean our moral values come from Christian-Judeo moral codes. Even our laws are based on such things as the 10 commandments and the bible. So you claiming that the muslims are barbaric because they base their moral codes on the Quran is nonsensical.


Your "argument" changes from post to post. Do you have alzheimer's or something? You continually claim your argument was one thing when everyone can read it was something entirely different. Maybe you need to see a doctor Tassy.

[Tassman]

You categorized these societies and countries as barbaric. Not as your opinion but as a moral judgment.

So you denied it was just your opinion and claimed that their morals were inferior which means you are considering your morals to be objectively better than theirs.

Better for our

Why? Morals are just relative values each society uses right?

Correct. And the morality underlying a tribal society, which is when Abrahamic morality evolved, is not attuned to a 21st century multicultural international society.

I mean our moral values come from Christian-Judeo moral codes. Even our laws are based on such things as the 10 commandments and the bible.

So you claiming that the muslims are barbaric because they base their moral codes on the Quran is nonsensical.

[Sparko]

But I believe morals are objective. You don't. So you have no basis to make that judgement call. The fact that you do, shows us that deep down you do believe morals are objective even if you won't admit it openly.




You seem to think "evolve" equates to "better" but then since morals are just relative values there is no better. They can "change" but they can't "evolve" into anything better or "devolve" into something worse. There was nothing wrong with Jim Crow laws under your moral worldview. There was nothing wrong with burning witches, or gassing Jews, or anything else. It simply is a different value set than we have today.




I don't have to. I believe in objective morality. YOU have to accept it under what you claim morality is. Keep up, Tassman. YOU are the one saying that there is no objective right or wrong.

[Tassman]

But I believe morals are objective.

You don't. So you have no basis to make that judgement call. The fact that you do, shows us that deep down you do believe morals are objective even if you won't admit it openly.

You seem to think "evolve" equates to "better" but then since morals are just relative values there is no better. They can "change" but they can't "evolve" into anything better or "devolve" into something worse. There was nothing wrong with Jim Crow laws under your moral worldview. There was nothing wrong with burning witches, or gassing Jews, or anything else. It simply is a different value set than we have today.

It was a

I don't have to. I believe in objective morality.

So do Muslims. Just a different

YOU have to accept it under what you claim morality is. Keep up, Tassman. YOU are the one saying that there is no objective right or wrong.

[Sparko]

It means that we have a basis for complaining about whether some other group or person is moral or not. You don't.



I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy between what you claim morals are (subjective) and how you react to other societies that don't agree with your morals.

Yes, you claim that, but then you seem to have some objective sense of this goal or standard that morality is striving for, making it better. That standard is an objective goal that you believe exists that morals are evolving to. Which means you think morals are objective. Otherwise morals would not "evolve" they would just change from society to society, neither one being better or worse than the last. Slavery might not be moral today, but it might be again in 100 years. And if so, it would not be "better" or "worse" than today. It would just be the morals of that society, which even might be this society one day.

[seer]

Slavery might not be moral today, but it might be again in 100 years. And if so, it would not be "better" or "worse" than today. It would just be the morals of that society, which even might be this society one day.

Actually to degrees slavery is still quite prevalent world wide: https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...meback/266354/

So by Tass' light it must be OK...

[Tassman]

It means that we have a basis for complaining about whether some other group or person is moral or not. You don't.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy between what you claim morals are (subjective) and how you react to other societies that don't agree with your morals.

Yes, you claim that, but then you seem to have some objective sense of this goal or standard that morality is striving for, making it better.

There is no

That standard is an objective goal that you believe exists that morals are evolving to. Which means you think morals are objective.

Otherwise morals would not "evolve" they would just change from society to society, neither one being better or worse than the last. Slavery might not be moral today, but it might be again in 100 years. And if so, it would not be "better" or "worse" than today. It would just be the morals of that society, which even might be this society one day.

[Sparko]

Except since you claim that morals are just each societies own values your complaint has no teeth. It would be like complaining that Germans wearing lederhosen is evil.



it's just that's societies morals Tassman, right? Just their culture. Nothing right or wrong with it.






See you can't make up your mind. You want morals to be objective and subjective at the same time. You are a hypocritical moron who can't even see your own contradictions. If morals are just cultural values then they have no actual "right or wrong" values. They just "are". They can't get "better" or "worse" and you have no basis to complain about anyone else's morals any more than you have a right to complain about what they think is their favorite flavor of ice cream.

[Mountain Man]

See you can't make up your mind. You want morals to be objective and subjective at the same time. You are a hypocritical moron who can't even see your own contradictions.

This is the exact same knot I've seen every moral relativist tie himself in when trying to defend his views. There are very few atheists who have the intellectual honesty and courage to follow their worldview to its logical conclusion and embrace nihilism.

[Sparko]

This is the exact same knot I've seen every moral relativist tie himself in when trying to defend his views. There are very few atheists who have the intellectual honesty and courage to follow their worldview to its logical conclusion and embrace nihilism.

The very fact that Tassman is on theologyweb arguing about what is right and wrong shows that he believes there is an objective standard. Otherwise, why bother.

CS Lewis covered it quite well in Mere Christianity

[Tassman]

Except since you claim that morals are just each societies own values your complaint has no teeth

What else is morality if not a set of rules based upon the community values of each society?

It would be like complaining that Germans wearing lederhosen is evil.

Bad fashion sense is not necessarily "evil".

it's just that's societies morals Tassman, right? Just their culture. Nothing right or wrong with it.

was anything wrong with it, according to the standards of their culture. But such activity is no longer acceptable in our culture today, any more than bible-based witch-killing, racial discrimination or incarcerating homosexuals is acceptable. It was once, it is no longer.

See you can't make up your mind. You want morals to be objective and subjective at the same time.

I never said that, this is your misrepresentation of what you think I said.

You are a hypocritical moron who can't even see your own contradictions. If morals are just cultural values then they have no actual "right or wrong" values. They just "are".

you

[Sparko]

was anything wrong with it, according to the standards of their culture. But such activity is no longer acceptable in our culture today, any more than bible-based witch-killing, racial discrimination or incarcerating homosexuals is acceptable. It was once, it is no longer.

So basically, "I didn't say there was anything wrong with wearing lederhosen according to the standards of their culture, but such fashion is no longer acceptable in our culture today."



Then you have no complaint. But the fact that you are here arguing with me and others about what is good and what is bad, what is moral and immoral, means that you do believe in some moral standard of "good" that we should all strive towards. And the fact that you think Muslims murdering homosexuals is immoral in their own society shows you believe that standard to be objective and universal.

I never said that, this is your misrepresentation of what you think I said.

No it is just my observation of what you have said in this thread and others. You both want to claim that morals are just subjective cultural values and that the morals that YOU believe should be applied to everyone. Do you try to force your preferences for Ice Cream flavors on others? No. Yet you think you can tell others, including me, what my moral standards should be.

The fact that you can't even see what you are doing is just the icing on the cake of your ignorance.