You are always welcome to bring up arguments. Is the concept of “open marriage” legal? Is sex “outside marriage” legal? Are they “moral”? The point was that legality has nothing to do with morality. Is that part of the reality? Or is it only a figment of my imagination?
“Divine inspiration”. “Teaching of Jesus”. “Authority of Church magisterium.”
Let’s examine your claim: you’re saying that folks who assert an ethical system aren’t making the claim that his system isn’t valid?
You’re making this too easy.
Nonsense. You said that there is no such method. Prove your claim.
Good job backing off your unable-to-be-substantiated claim.
Again: divine inspiration. The very words of Christ. The authority of the magisterium.
None of those count as evidence for some absolute and objective ethical system.
This is really boring. If you don’t understand that it is impossible to prove a universal negative in an inductive system, it would be a waste of my time to continue this discussion. Universal negatives can only be proven in some axiomatic system, but not in an inductive system.
Remember, Thinker_Doer, you yourself have confirmed the existence of an objective morality by refusing to consider the case of my stealing all your silverware as an instance of subjectively different and equally-valid morals.Gorgias:
None of those count as evidence for some absolute and objective ethical system.
This is really boring. If you don’t understand that it is impossible to prove a universal negative in an inductive system, it would be a waste of my time to continue this discussion. Universal negatives can only be proven in some axiomatic system, but not in an inductive system.
IF you define “morality” as the written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior, then there is “objective” morality in every society, in every time. Of course that would also require the definition of “society”. In a hippy-colony or in a kibbutz the rules of socially acceptable behavior are very different.
It all related to your claim that there is no objective morality. But you behave as if there were. Redefining morality to exclude theft by calling it an “socially rejected behavior” is a dodge. For the purposes of this argument, injunctions against theft is an instance of a morality-based injunction.LeafByNiggle:
IF you define “morality” as the written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior, then there is “objective” morality in every society, in every time. Of course that would also require the definition of “society”. In a hippy-colony or in a kibbutz the rules of socially acceptable behavior are very different.
But that so-called objective morality varies from society to society and from time to time. In some societies there was no concept of private property, so there was no concept of theft either.
And your post has nothing to do with my answer to Gorgias.
I explained everything. If you consider it “redefinition”, that is your problem.
Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether they think the treatment of theft is a moral issue. It is no problem for me. The problem is yours in explaining why I can’t come over to your house and steal all your silverware without your calling the police on me. After all, you would not call the police on me if I disagreed with you over whether Toy Story 4 was better than Isle of Dogs.LeafByNiggle:
I explained everything. If you consider it “redefinition”, that is your problem.
Because in these days in our society theft is a CRIME. You keep on confusing the two categories.
Would you report an illegal immigrant then?
But the reason you would be upset at me has nothing to do with the formal designation of theft being a crime. You would be upset at me because theft of your property offends your morals, which you then would have no reluctance to enforce onto me.LeafByNiggle:
Because in these days in our society theft is a CRIME. You keep on confusing the two categories.
No, just like I would not call the police for seeing a couple having sex on the beach. You guys are so rigid in your thoughts. Learn to differentiate between the seriousness on people’s actions.
You’re the one saying there is no objective morality. If that is true there is no difference between somebody stealing your valuables and entering the country illegally or killing you for that matter.
Since you cannot even DEFINE what “morality” would be, this conversation is futile.
I plan to use my money for a 2nd holiday this year. You plan to steal it for the more important task of contributing to a conference on improving farm productivity. So that’s alright then?
It depends on circumstances and the outcome. Without the actual details one cannot make a judgment call.
Which highlights the advantage of a system where right and wrong are often (though not always) distinguishable in a more fundamental (simpler) way.