Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

Right and like I said in the past, though gassing Jews would be wrong to you, it was morally acceptable to the Nazis. So in their context you would have to admit that it was a moral good.

I have to admit that they believe it is a moral good. I do not have to admit that it is a moral good because it is NOT a moral good in my framework. It is a moral ill - for all people in all contexts. I believe the world would be a better place if that moral position was adopted by everyone.

So how is moral reasoning valid if values like sincerity or open-mindedness are merely relative?

It is valid if the premises are true and the argument takes proper syllogistic form - as with all forms of reasoning.

What does that even look like, since the man that has not approached these question with sincerity or open-mindedness has committed no foul. He is no more right or wrong than you.

Of course he is - to me. A man who cannot rationally defend his moral conclusions is moralizing irrationally. You are moralizing irrationally, because you have simply abandoned moral reasoning altogether and simply ask "is it in the book?" That is not a position that can be rationally defended, AFAICT.

But your argument here is, yet again, another complaint of the form "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." What you mean in your last statement is that they are no more absolutely/objectively right or wrong. Of course not - because morality is not absolute/objective. They ARE relatively/subjectively right or wrong.

How is that not absurd?

I'm not seeing any absurdity, Seer.

On what rational basis do you object to the collective moral wisdom of the herd?

I don't, Seer. I merely pointing out that indiscriminately linking one's moral framework to an agency outside the self constitutes an abandoning of moral reasoning. It abandons looking at the underlying value structure, the structure of the moral argument, or the impact of the moral position. The only criteria is "what does the herd think?" The moralizer become a sheep subject to the whims of the herd.

It can not be experience since the collective herd has much more of that than the individual.

So your argument is that a collection of people "following the herd" is somehow wiser than a single individual considering each argument and attempting to derive a reasoned conclusion? Really? I am stunned you would even try to make this argument.

And it can not be knowledge since the since the collective herd has much more of that than the individual too.

Same response

So what is it? Feelings?

I have no idea what "it" is in that sentence.

OK, so you don't claim that there are no moral absolutes. Good to know.

What? Seer - you need to read more carefully. That is NOT what I said. You're putting words in my mouth.

[seer]

I have to admit that they believe it is a moral good. I do not have to admit that it is a moral good because it is NOT a moral good in my framework. It is a moral ill - for all people in all contexts. I believe the world would be a better place if that moral position was adopted by everyone.

No, it was an actual moral good to them. So in this world the gassing of Jews was an actual moral good in a particular culture. That is a fact if relativism is true, you may not personally agree, but that is irrelevant to the point.

It is valid if the premises are true and the argument takes proper syllogistic form - as with all forms of reasoning.

But as we have seen syllogisms tell us nothing about what is moral or not. Unless you agree that the random killing of ants is immoral.

Of course he is - to me. A man who cannot rationally defend his moral conclusions is moralizing irrationally. You are moralizing irrationally, because you have simply abandoned moral reasoning altogether and simply ask "is it in the book?" That is not a position that can be rationally defended, AFAICT.

What do you mean by moralizing irrationally if values like sincerity or open-mindedness are merely relative? If these values rely on personal preference, then calling something irrational is merely another subjective preference. To be accepted or discarded at will.

I don't, Seer. I merely pointing out that indiscriminately linking one's moral framework to an agency outside the self constitutes an abandoning of moral reasoning. It abandons looking at the underlying value structure, the structure of the moral argument, or the impact of the moral position. The only criteria is "what does the herd think?" The moralizer become a sheep subject to the whims of the herd.

So your argument is that a collection of people "following the herd" is somehow wiser than a single individual considering each argument and attempting to derive a reasoned conclusion? Really? I am stunned you would even try to make this argument.

I will ask again, since the collective wisdom of the herd far outweighs the experience and knowledge of the individual on what rational basis is your objection made?

[carpedm9587]

No, it was an actual moral good to them.

Yes. The "to them" is what you left out last time.

So in this world the gassing of Jews was an actual moral good in a particular culture.

To them...

That is a fact if relativism is true, you may not personally agree, but that is irrelevant to the point.

It is absolutely relevant. I don't assess morality by someone else's moral framework. I assess by mine. Gassing children is immoral. I will act on that and seek to have it be as widely acceptt a moral norm as I can make it.

But as we have seen syllogisms tell us nothing about what is moral or not. Unless you agree that the random killing of ants is immoral.

It tells us nothing about what is absolutely/objectively moral - because it is (again) a relative/subjective activity. You are back to complaining "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective."

What do you mean by moralizing irrationally if values like sincerity or open-mindedness are merely relative?

I mean beginning with true premises and forming the argument in proper syllogistic form - as is the case for ANY reasoning. This is logic 101, Seer. I'm not sure why you're not getting it.

If these values rely on personal preference, then calling something irrational is merely another subjective preference. To be accepted or discarded at will.

You are back to complaining "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective."

I will ask again, since the collective wisdom of the herd far outweighs the experience and knowledge of the individual on what rational basis is your objection made?

I've already answered this. I reject the implied premise that a large group of people is inherently "wiser" or "more knowledgeable" (about relevant information) by virtue of numbers. Herd are subject to mob-mentality - which is hardly rooted in either reason or even conscious thought. So any argument that takes the form "it must be right because most people think it" is doomed to fail before it even starts.

And it is not merely the problem of "the herd." It is the problem of abandoning reasoning all together.

And you have the additional problem, in your case, that your "herd" constitutes a handful of men you (mostly) can't identify who lived 2000-3500 years ago whose original writings are lost to time.

[seer]

Yes. The "to them" is what you left out last time.

To them...

It is absolutely relevant. I don't assess morality by someone else's moral framework. I assess by mine. Gassing children is immoral. I will act on that and seek to have it be as widely acceptt a moral norm as I can make it.

Why is your opinion relevant? Because you say so?

It tells us nothing about what is absolutely/objectively moral - because it is (again) a relative/subjective activity. You are back to complaining "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective."

See Carp, you don't believe that the random killing of ants is immoral, even if I used a deductive argument to demonstrate that. So much for syllogisms telling us anything about morality.

I mean beginning with true premises and forming the argument in proper syllogistic form - as is the case for ANY reasoning. This is logic 101, Seer. I'm not sure why you're not getting it.

You mean like I did with ants? Now what? And by true premises, you mean "true for you" - correct?

You are back to complaining "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective."

Right, I'm glad you agree that what you label "irrational" is not absolute and is relative. So we are free to discard that opinion.

I've already answered this. I reject the implied premise that a large group of people is inherently "wiser" or "more knowledgeable" (about relevant information) by virtue of numbers. Herd are subject to mob-mentality - which is hardly rooted in either reason or even conscious thought. So any argument that takes the form "it must be right because most people think it" is doomed to fail before it even starts.

Doomed by who? You, your more limited experience and knowledge? Are we to assume that something must be right because Carp believes it?

And it is not merely the problem of "the herd." It is the problem of abandoning reasoning all together.

But Carp you have not shown how "reasoning" is any more valid for deciding what is right. Unless you agree with the Maoist.

[carpedm9587]

Why is your opinion relevant? Because you say so?

It is relevant to me. It is relevant to anyone who is looking to explore with an open mind and an eye towards exploring the issues. It is not necessarily relevant to everyone. Indeed, it will be irrelevant to you because your metric is "what does my herd/book say." So morality discussions with you will go nowhere and we will be left with ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.

See Carp, you don't believe that the random killing of ants is immoral, even if I used a deductive argument to demonstrate that. So much for syllogisms telling us anything about morality.

You picking nits, Seer. My morality says that any random, intentional killing of human beings is immoral. Frankly, I would consider it immoral to intentionally, randomly take ANY life - including ants.

You mean like I did with ants? Now what? And by true premises, you mean "true for you" - correct?

Of course true for me. Any moral statement I make about morality is true subjectively and relatively. I've never said otherwise.

Right, I'm glad you agree that what you label "irrational" is not absolute and is relative. So we are free to discard that opinion.

So your complaint remains "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." Agreed. So what?

Doomed by who?

By anyone with a lick of rational sense, Seer.

You, your more limited experience and knowledge?

You cannot show it is necessarily more limited based on mere numbers.

Are we to assume that something must be right because Carp believes it?

Never claimed that, so I have no response.

But Carp you have not shown how "reasoning" is any more valid for deciding what is right. Unless you agree with the Maoist.

So your complaint remains "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." Agreed. So what?

[seer]

It is relevant to me. It is relevant to anyone who is looking to explore with an open mind and an eye towards exploring the issues. It is not necessarily relevant to everyone. Indeed, it will be irrelevant to you because your metric is "what does my herd/book say." So morality discussions with you will go nowhere and we will be left with ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.

Again, and your opinion matters why? And explore what with an open mind? Open mindedness, another subjective value that can be easily dismissed?

You picking nits, Seer. My morality says that any random, intentional killing of human beings is immoral. Frankly, I would consider it immoral to intentionally, randomly take ANY life - including ants.

Really, so you always avoid stepping on ants and never eat meat. Wait what did you eat at our dinner? But again Carp, the process of moral reasoning can just as well lead to gulags or killing dissidents. So again, moral reasoning only confirms what one subjectively holds to be the case. No better or worse than following the herd.

Of course true for me. Any moral statement I make about morality is true subjectively and relatively. I've never said otherwise.

So your "true premises" are not objective facts, but subjective preferences.

So your complaint remains "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." Agreed. So what?

So you agree that your use of irrational is a subjective preference. So I guess we can dismiss that too. Thanks...

By anyone with a lick of rational sense, Seer.

Is that another subjective claim? Can I dismiss it now?

You cannot show it is necessarily more limited based on mere numbers.

And you can not show that it isn't. So I guess you just toss a coin.

Never claimed that, so I have no response.

Then what are you saying Carp? How do you logically stack up your experience and knowledge against the collective experience and knowledge of the herd. Where do you even begin? It seems to be a radically hubris claim on your part.

So your complaint remains "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." Agreed. So what?

Are you agreeing that "reasoning" is no more valid in coming to moral conclusions than following the herd? If not, how exactly is it more valid?

[carpedm9587]

Again, and your opinion matters why? And explore what with an open mind? Open mindedness, another subjective value that can be easily dismissed?

See my previous response.

Really, so you always avoid stepping on ants and never eat meat. Wait what did you eat at our dinner?

You're right - my statement was too broad and not well though through. I do tend to avoid taking life randomly or with malicious intent to do harm, because I consider it an immoral act. I do not consider killing to eat to be either random or with malicious intent. I don't consider accidentally stepping on an ant to be a moral problem any more than any other accidental (i.e., non-intended) harm is a moral issue. But why do you ask? After all, my morality is relative/subjective - and yours is "what's in the book." So why would my moral framework have anything to do with yours?

But again Carp, the process of moral reasoning can just as well lead to gulags or killing dissidents. So again, moral reasoning only confirms what one subjectively holds to be the case. No better or worse than following the herd.

See my previous responses.

So your "true premises" are not objective facts, but subjective preferences.

So your complaint remains "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." Agreed. So what?

So you agree that your use of irrational is a subjective preference.

No.

So I guess we can dismiss that too. Thanks...

You are absolutely in charge of what you dismiss or accept, Seer.

Is that another subjective claim? Can I dismiss it now?

All moral claims are relative/subjective - including yours.

And you can not show that it isn't. So I guess you just toss a coin.

Which is exactly what "follow the herd" amounts to, Seer. That's what I've been saying all along. You have continually argued that "following the herd" is somehow wise.

Then what are you saying Carp?

See my previous posts.

How do you logically stack up your experience and knowledge against the collective experience and knowledge of the herd. Where do you even begin?

See my previous posts.

It seems to be a radically hubris claim on your part.

So your complaint remains "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." Agreed. So what?

Are you agreeing that "reasoning" is no more valid in coming to moral conclusions than following the herd?

No.

If not, how exactly is it more valid?

See my previous response.


I am truly curious, Seer. You have this habit of simply ignoring responses and just repeating the same question over, and over, and over, again. So what exactly is your objective? To wear me down until I give up and just stop responding? It may be a effective debate style, but it's not a particularly effective way to arrive at a conclusion. Going forward, I'm going to limit myself to answering a question once, maybe adding a clarification, if asked, and then simply pointing you to my previous response when you repeat the same question ad infinitum.

[seer]

You're right - my statement was too broad and not well though through. I do tend to avoid taking life randomly or with malicious intent to do harm, because I consider it an immoral act. I do not consider killing to eat to be either random or with malicious intent. I don't consider accidentally stepping on an ant to be a moral problem any more than any other accidental (i.e., non-intended) harm is a moral issue. But why do you ask? After all, my morality is relative/subjective - and yours is "what's in the book." So why would my moral framework have anything to do with yours?

I wonder if the cow would consider it malicious intent when we kill and eat it. But my point was is that you can make a deductive argument for almost any moral question, including one that finds the killing of dissidents to be moral. So how does that tell us any more about what is right or wrong than what the herd or book came up with? It doesn't...

No.

How so, how is your use of irrational not subjective? Exactly?

You are absolutely in charge of what you dismiss or accept, Seer.

I see no rational reason to do otherwise.

No.

Then exactly how are your moral conclusions more valid than what the herd comes up with. Based on what?

I am truly curious, Seer. You have this habit of simply ignoring responses and just repeating the same question over, and over, and over, again. So what exactly is your objective? To wear me down until I give up and just stop responding? It may be a effective debate style, but it's not a particularly effective way to arrive at a conclusion. Going forward, I'm going to limit myself to answering a question once, maybe adding a clarification, if asked, and then simply pointing you to my previous response when you repeat the same question ad infinitum.

Because Carp, all you are doing is making assertions. You have not shown, in any rational sense why, for instance, your moral sense is superior to that of the herd. How your individual experience and knowledge some how trumps their collective experience and knowledge. All you did was assert that the mob could possibly do this or that - that is not a rational argument, but emotive. I mean you can assert that you simply don't prefer what the herd does, but we can't take a personal preference to the bank...

[Sparko]

So, Sparko's response (and Mossrose's too) caused me to sit and think for a bit. It made me realize that the pages and pages of exchanges with Seer have wandered all over creation (TIC), and sometimes the forest gets lost for looking at the tree bark. So, in a nutshell (it may be a large one - we'll see), this is what I have come to understand about morality.

- We are born with no real ability to moralize, because morality is a function of reasoning and will only be possible to the degree we can reason.
- We start out largely "obeying the rules" because of the authority of those who make those rules (parents, guardians, older siblings). Some people never escape that form of moralizing. They simply transfer the authority to greater and greater "authorities" - often ending up with "god."
- Once we are able to reason, we are able to reason morally. Many of us begin to examine our moral frameworks, seeking to have them "make sense."
- For them to make sense, we need to know what they are rooted it. Ultimately, a reasoned morality is rooted in the things a person values, and the priority they place on those values. Do I value life? Do I value liberty? Do I value life more than liberty or liberty more than life? Money? Friendship? Happiness? Health?
- How do we come to value something? We are influenced in that by our various "herds." That influence is moderated by personal experience. Hopefully, both are moderated by thought and reason. But it is from these "things I value" that our sorting of behavior into "ought" and "ought not" arises.
- Because we share many things in common with our fellow humans (life, humanity, this planet, societies, religions, etc.), there is a good deal of alignment in what we come to value.
- Because there is a good deal of alignment in what we value, and the laws of reason are immutable, there is a good deal of alignment in our moral frameworks. Many confuse these highly aligned elements with "moral absolutes" and seek to project them externally on some "authority" or "law of nature." No such thing exists - it is merely a set of widely, commonly, close to universally shared set of moral positions.
- Everyone evaluates not only their own behavior, but the behavior of everyone else against their own moral framework. They perceive their own as "the best" and that the world would be a better place if everyone followed it. If someone ever encounters a moral position that seems "better" than the one they currently hold, they immediately reject the one they hold in favor fo the new one.
- The fact that moralizing is rooted in what we value leads to some amount of variation in moral frameworks. We don't value identically. We don't prioritize identically. So we but up against one-another's moral frameworks regularly. When this happens, we often engage in back and forth about which moral position is "better." There are basically three possible outcomes of this contention:

1) If we have aligned valuing, we can seek to find how our reasoning to the moral conclusion differs and if one can find a flaw in the other's chain of reasoning, they might convince. This is a rational/logical approach.
2) If we do not have aligned valuing, one can seek to influence how the other values so as to get them aligned, and then we can go to 1). This may be a reasoned/rational approach if the valuing was reasonably/rationally arrived at. If it is more emotive or experiential, it may not be a reasoned/rational approach.
3) If we cannot align the valuing, or make a rational argument that convinces, the moral frameworks will remain unaligned, which means all that is left is to either ignore the difference (if it is a minor issue or not affecting the relationship), isolate/separate (when it is more serious and affects the relationship) or contend (when one moral framework impinges on the other).

That's how morality works. It is how it has always worked. Even for the Christian who believes their morality "comes from god." What is actually happening is that the Christian is valuing "god" and "the book" above pretty much everything else. They adopt an "what does the book say" approach to moral decision making. As a result (for me):

1) Reasoning from base valuing cannot work because the underlying valuing is seriously out of sync. I do not believe there is a god, so I do not value the being. Ergo I do not value the book (beyond its role as archaeological evidence and literature)
2) Working to align the values so we can go back to 1) is not likely to succeed. It would require me to begin believing there is a god (not likely) or them to either cease to believe there is a god, or to cease to believe that "the book" is the unquestionable word of this god (equally not likely).
3) That means having rational moral discussions with the Christian who thinks in this way (e.g., Seer, Sparko, etc.) is actually not possible. That leaves ignore, separate/isolate, contend.

We can discuss the nature of morality all day long. But my attempts to have discussions about what is and is not moral, including the genetics discussion, the consistency discussion, etc. Were largely folly on my part. The metric for determining morality is "what does the book say" and there is no rational argument about that - except to engage in linguistic debates about what the author's meant. Since we cannot do that successfully for a document written 200 years ago by authors we know whose original writings (both the document and related writings) we possess who wrote in our language, I think the odds of being successful at doing that for a collection of documents written 2000-3500 years ago by authors we mostly don't know whose original writings we do not possess and who wrote in a different language is slim to none. Some of the moral claims in the bible appear to be unambiguous, and others are all over the map. And engaging in those discussions simply begins by accepting the premise "the book" is the moral authority.

So, in hindsight, most of my attempts to have moral discussions about particulars have been a waste of time. I didn't do a good job of thinking through the consequences and understanding the dynamics of the moral discussion. Any argument based on genetics is doomed to failure, not because the basic argument is wrong, but because it is an argument that ignores the fundamental basis of the opposing moral framework, which is "is it in the book?"

So you blast out an entire novel to say that men are sinful and will do what they feel is best in their own eyes? That they will do evil and call it good? That they justify and rationalize their sin?

Well we agree. Everyone will want to have their own morality. Hitler probably though he was doing "good" in his own mind by ridding the world of Jews.

We Christians believe all that. We just believe there is a standard out there of actual Good and Evil, no matter what each individual thinks themselves. And we believe this standard has been revealed to us by God in the bible.
While you want to sin as you wish and justify it as "your subjective morality" and claim it is based on "reason" but the real reason is that you want to think of yourself as Good and so you will justify your actions as good in order to accomplish it. At least until you are called out on it by someone you care about, then you MIGHT relent and say you are wrong. But your moral standard is yourself. And your arrogance makes you believe that standard is how everyone should believe, because you know best.

[Sparko]

That's not a problem, Sparko. That's how moralizing works. That is what EVERYONE does.

yeah. It is called "rationilzing" and it is wrong.

No.



No.

Yes. Yes.

[carpedm9587]

I wonder if the cow would consider it malicious intent when we kill and eat it. But my point was is that you can make a deductive argument for almost any moral question, including one that finds the killing of dissidents to be moral. So how does that tell us any more about what is right or wrong than what the herd or book came up with? It doesn't...

How so, how is your use of irrational not subjective? Exactly?

I see no rational reason to do otherwise.

Then exactly how are your moral conclusions more valid than what the herd comes up with. Based on what?

Because Carp, all you are doing is making assertions. You have not shown, in any rational sense why, for instance, your moral sense is superior to that of the herd. How your individual experience and knowledge some how trumps their collective experience and knowledge. All you did was assert that the mob could possibly do this or that - that is not a rational argument, but emotive. I mean you can assert that you simply don't prefer what the herd does, but we can't take a personal preference to the bank...

I've answered all of these question in previous posts. I'll let those responses stand.

[carpedm9587]

So you blast out an entire novel to say that men are sinful and will do what they feel is best in their own eyes?

No - after pages and pages, I post a summary of the entire way morality works. The theological language is yours, not mine.

That they will do evil and call it good?

As with Seer, this is another complaint that "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." We already know that. Agreed. So what?

That they justify and rationalize their sin?

Your theological language - not mine.

Well we agree. Everyone will want to have their own morality. Hitler probably though he was doing "good" in his own mind by ridding the world of Jews.

Everyone DOES have their own morality. It's not a matter of "wanting." That's how morality works. It always has. Even yours.

We Christians believe all that. We just believe there is a standard out there of actual Good and Evil, no matter what each individual thinks themselves. And we believe this standard has been revealed to us by God in the bible.

Your subjective and somewhat arbitrary decision to align with the moral code put forward in the bible as you interpret it does not make your moral code less subjective. And naturally, if I was writing down a moral code I wanted everyone to follow, I'd probably be tempted to tell my readers that it's "absolute" and that "sinful people don't follow it."

While you want to sin as you wish and justify it as "your subjective morality" and claim it is based on "reason" but the real reason is that you want to think of yourself as Good and so you will justify your actions as good in order to accomplish it.

Most of is tend to see ourselves as "good." It's kind of wired into us.

At least until you are called out on it by someone you care about, then you MIGHT relent and say you are wrong. But your moral standard is yourself. And your arrogance makes you believe that standard is how everyone should believe, because you know best.

My standard is myself - and yours is yourself - and Seer' is himself. You work to align to a moral code YOU chose, and follow a specific interpretation that YOU accept, and then congratulate yourself that you are "doing god's will," and expect everyone else to follow it too. And if you had been born in India, you'd probably touting the moral authority of the Vedas. If you had been born in the Middle East you would very likely be trying to convince everyone that the Quran is the moral authority. Each religion has their "code" and each member of each religion believes they have aligned to the "absolute/objective" moral standard that everyone else is supposed to follow.

But it is largely without thought or consideration. You are following the writings of a couple dozen men whose identity is largely unknown, who wrote 2000-3500 years ago, who wrote in a different language, who wrote in a different place, who wrote in a different culture, and none of whose original writings you actually have possession of. Yet you cling to the illusion of "I have the absolute/objective standard for everyone.

That you cannot see the odd results of juxtaposing all of these facts is...well...it is just a bit amazing.

[carpedm9587]

yeah. It is called "rationilzing" and it is wrong.

Yes. Yes.

Well - if by "rationalizing" you mean, "attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate," then no. But if we just stay with the first part, "attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons," then yes - of course.

As for being wrong - sorry, Sparko - but I do not abandon my moral reasoning to the vagaries of "the herd." Especially not under the circumstances that you and Seer (and others here) have done so. I prefer to put a bit more thought and consideration into my moral positions.

But this conversation HAS at least awakened me to the fact that moral reasoning with many (most?) Christians is an exercise in futility. A conclusion that is not rationally arrived at cannot be rationally disputed, discussed, or debated.

So I guess I'll see you in the polling station.

[Sparko]

No - after pages and pages, I post a summary of the entire way morality works. The theological language is yours, not mine.



As with Seer, this is another complaint that "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." We already know that. Agreed. So what?



Your theological language - not mine.



Everyone DOES have their own morality. It's not a matter of "wanting." That's how morality works. It always has. Even yours.



Your subjective and somewhat arbitrary decision to align with the moral code put forward in the bible as you interpret it does not make your moral code less subjective. And naturally, if I was writing down a moral code I wanted everyone to follow, I'd probably be tempted to tell my readers that it's "absolute" and that "sinful people don't follow it."



Most of is tend to see ourselves as "good." It's kind of wired into us.



My standard is myself - and yours is yourself - and Seer' is himself. You work to align to a moral code YOU chose, and follow a specific interpretation that YOU accept, and then congratulate yourself that you are "doing god's will," and expect everyone else to follow it too. And if you had been born in India, you'd probably touting the moral authority of the Vedas. If you had been born in the Middle East you would very likely be trying to convince everyone that the Quran is the moral authority. Each religion has their "code" and each member of each religion believes they have aligned to the "absolute/objective" moral standard that everyone else is supposed to follow.

But it is largely without thought or consideration. You are following the writings of a couple dozen men whose identity is largely unknown, who wrote 2000-3500 years ago, who wrote in a different language, who wrote in a different place, who wrote in a different culture, and none of whose original writings you actually have possession of. Yet you cling to the illusion of "I have the absolute/objective standard for everyone.

That you cannot see the odd results of juxtaposing all of these facts is...well...it is just a bit amazing.

You simply keep repeating yourself, admitting that you are just doing what is good in your own eyes, while expecting everyone else to align with your values. You have just made yourself the objective standard. Repeating yourself isn't convincing anyone that you are correct.

You are a hypocrite. You claim everyone has their own morality, but you expect them to align with yours.

[seer]

I've answered all of these question in previous posts. I'll let those responses stand.

Well no Carp, nowhere did you explain, apart from assertion, why moral reasoning leads to a better understanding of ethics over the herd. Especially in light of the fact that such reasoning could equally lead to gulags or the the killing of dissidents. In other words your moral reasoning is a self-justifying sham that leads nowhere when it comes morality. But for some strange reason you believe it is valid - I guess a man needs his illusions.