Greta wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:33 am
Your book of myths can provide no rational justification.
You'd need to show what reasons and evidence you have for your position. To assert "there is no," or "can provide no" is an absolute word, and is a claim to knowledge.
Show the basis of that knowledge claim, if you have any, please. Otherwise, should we assume your own statement "can provide no rational justification"? And how then would you expect us to regard it?
More modern morality is worked out via consensus over time.
I fear that that's a poor proposal, with many problems. And I'm certain you can anticipate some yourself.
One is that you really can't tell when it's "working out" and when it's not, without reference to some fixed belief about morality that you have already denied can exist. How would you know, for example, that ISIL is less "worked out" than Western liberalism, without some basis in a fixed moral ideology that is
neither ISIL nor Western Liberalism, but rather a meta-moral standard by which you are able to rightly judge both?
But a second problem is "consensus." For it really means no more than that the majority opinion at a given moment must always be allowed to win -- and that by power alone, not by any actual moral "betterness." For if you say, "The consensus position is "better" than the non-consensus view, then you've steamrolled over all the minorities --
and you've also had to refer again to that meta-moral standard, that objective moral truth that you have asserted cannot possibly exist.
That's why "modern morality" is so very nearly an oxymoron: at least, it most certainly is,
if modern relativism is assumed to be true.