Philosophy Now Forum

Let's clear one thing up right from the start; the Bible is not a repository of truth, Let's clear this up: one day, you'll find out whether or not that's true. Come off it, the Brothers Grimm produced stuff more plausible than the Bible. You clearly don't know what you're saying. You're talking ab...

"Feelings?" Anybody who trust his/her feelings is bound to go off course. In regards to the Bible, it's better to do proper textual analysis and exegesis, not rely on feelings. Well, since you mention the Bible, let's start with your feeling that the Bible is in some sense true; a feeling...

I would have to say that; otherwise I would be lying, which I consider to be morally wrong. But would only be a subjective taste, so not really "wrong," even for you. It would be really wrong as far as I was concerned, but I recognise that not everyone else might think it wrong. And in fi...

I once had a brother-in-law like you, he wasn't religious or anything silly like that, but he couldn't be honest to save his life. :| What on earth is "dishonest" about the above? You asked for MY answer, not one you had prepared in your own mind, presumably. I gave you MY answer. And sin...

If you were asked why stealing is wrong, what would you say? Because stealing is incommensurable with the character and will of God. But you will say, "Well, there's no God." I would have to say that; otherwise I would be lying, which I consider to be morally wrong. But would only be a su...

You absolutely dare not set about trying to justify your belief in objective morality, dare you? Done already. Were you asleep? I have said all I can possibly say about my view of why morality is purely subjective,... And therefore, it is nothing. That's my point. It's just Nihilism-for-those-afrai...

And you can't suggest one moral value that objectivism can necessitate for one rational person, either. Sure I can. Objectivism says it's immoral to steal, for example. Your only problem with that is presumptive: that is, that not believing in God, you do not believe in any Lawgiver or Ultimate Aut...

And you're not avoiding? :) 8) No. I'm asking a perfectly fair question, which I've asked you several times, and which you've never once been able to answer. So who's "avoiding" now? :? Just a reminder of my previous post: I saw it. But it contained a variety of untruths and misrepresenta...

I don't know what human "nature" is. I'm simply saying that kindness usually begets reciprocation and cooperation usually benefits everyone. Human nature is a very simple concept. All it means is that people have, in common, certain tendencies and liabilities. I'm surprised you haven't ru...

Ah, we're back to Rotherham again. It's as if you think I'm somehow responsible for that unfortunate Rotherham incident. :( Not at all, of course. But your justified antipathy to what they did is what's telling...it says that you realize that not everybody participates in the same moral values. So ...

And I know perfectly well that you will never accept anything I say about the subjective nature of morality, With good reason: as I've shown, it can't even make sense for the Subjectivist , and even when we grant him all his suppositions from the get-go. but I have enough confidence in my position ...

Please explain how "objective" morality is going to protect me from being robbed, raped etc....... "Prevent"? Nobody can prevent a Rotherham gang member from committing rape. Ah, we're back to Rotherham again. It's as if you think I'm somehow responsible for that unfortunate Rot...

I'd love to believe that if humans are kind to each other and solve problems through cooperation instead of warfare, that would be reward enough for engaging in kindness and cooperation. I take it you don't believe that is so? If humans were universally kind, we would have no need of laws or morali...

My only purpose here is to argue that there are no such things as objective moral truths; hence objective morality is an impossibility. So if objective morality is out of the conversation, I have no reason to take part in the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, you persistence in avoiding the mo...

My only purpose here is to argue that there are no such things as objective moral truths; hence objective morality is an impossibility. So if objective morality is out of the conversation, I have no reason to take part in the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, you persistence in avoiding the mo...