Refuting the Dogmatic Morality of Secularism - How do we do it?

[Contra_Mundum_1]

You confuse “objective” and “absolute”. Do you know the difference between them? The “absolute” version says: “there are acts, which are always wrong, regardless of the circumstances” - in other words it attempts to evaluate actions as if they happened in a vacuum. The “objective” version says that actions cannot be separated from their environment, in order to evaluate an action, all circumstances must be evaluated.

Objectivity defined as the standard against we measure everything. So it can be used interchangeably. You like to play with words, I can see that. But my main point you did not address. My guess is that there are things in this world you find immoral, even sick an unnatural. So the question is: why? If you find only one thing, unnatural, sick and immoral, surely you will agree that there is a reason for that.

But given the way you argue on this thread, you very clearly reveal the secularist logic in action. So I’m not expecting much of a response to my question, just something clever that will manage to avoid the point.

 

[Serious]

Objectivity defined as the standard against we measure everything. So it can be used interchangeably.

No, they cannot. Sure there is a standard. But the absolute version asserts that the standard never changes. Do you understand the significance of this?

You like to play with words, I can see that.

This is not playing with words. This kind of remark is the reason why a constructive dialog is impossible with some people. I am still giving you the benefit of doubt, that is why I am responding.

My guess is that there are things in this world you find immoral, even sick an unnatural. So the question is: why? If you find only one thing, unnatural, sick and immoral, surely you will agree that there is a reason for that.

Of course there are things like that, and of course there is a good reason why I find them objectionable. Because that is how my personality was formed by my parents, relatives, etc… First, I accepted those teachings automatically and instinctively, just like any child, since children have no crititical skills. Later, I examined those principles rationally. Some of them withstood the test of scrutiny, others did not - and those I discarded. The list of both are too long to enumerate.

It just so happens that most people are decent, that they have similar things they agree upon. The collection of these concepts - is the prevailing morality within a certain society during a certain time period. It is objective, because it exists whether some people agree with it or not, but it is not absolute, because it changes - slowly, for sure, but still changes.