Incest, homosexuality

[ib.me.ub]

---

I would argue that "my morality" and "your morality" don't exist, or rather it makes no sense to use the word morality with subjective value statements because morality is concerned with "us" value, and not an individuals opinion on what actions are morally good or bad.

Off you go then ;-). It makes no difference.

Not really, but it does help to have our language as coherent and sensible as possible. Having "subjective morality" is 1) The same thing as opinion and 2) Doesn't make sense of moral language.

---

I hold the position that there are no universal moral standard by which to judge others. Until you can outline a universal moral code, that is easy to understand and can be applied by all, I will not change my position.

---

You have the right to condemn people who do the things you find repulsive, but if it's simply "I find x repulsive" then you have no obligation to condemn or prevent it, but if something is morally bad, then it is something we have reason to prevent or condemn. So, like I said, saying something is morally wrong but we shouldn't do anything about it makes no sense.

See this is what you beleive. It is not what I said.

Yes you did, you said that you find incest "morally repulsive" but you aren't going to do anything about it (which is actually false as condemning it is doing something about it). To say x is morally wrong is the same as saying "we have reasons for action to prevent x". If there was no reason for "us" to prevent it then there is no reason to associate it with morality.

---

I said it is morally wrong. I did not say I wanted to change it or prevent it. I will apply my moral standards to my own behaviour.

---

No, we only determine our values, whether or not our values are morally good or bad is something else. Opinion and morality aren't interchangeable. There aren't just two options, "universal code" and "i like", we also have relationships to consider, how my actions and intentions affect other people, that is the "us" part of morality and talking about values in terms of "us" what morality is about.

---

Ummm, no. Once again it is but your opinion.

---

No it's not, it's a fairly obvious conclusion from the premises:

1. Do you determine any values but your own? No
2. Is morality concerned with individuals or societies? Societies
3. Are claims about social values "opinions"? No

Therefore:
3.Does it make sense to talk about individual morality? No.

It's rather straight forward.

---

1. Do you determine any values but your own? Yes & No.
2. Is morality concerned with individuals or societies? Both.
3. Are claims about social values "opinions"? No

Therefore:
Does it make sense to talk about individual morality? Yes.

Its rather straight forward.

---

"Moral for me" and "Moral for you" make about as much sense as "my logic" and "your logic"

You certainly have a very strange way to look at the World.

Is there a "my logic" and "your logic"? No, there is logic and whether or not we are correct in using it is the only time "me" and "you" are concerned.

Morality is the same. It is a standard by which action is judged and It's necessarily concerned with values relating to "us". What actions bring about good and bad values for (most of) "us" is not an opinion, it's an objective fact. "me" or "you" have our own values, and our values include our own standard of evaluation similar to morality, but opinions of that type are not concerned with "us" so they can't be called morality.

That's all sound and valid, so your objection is rather weak.

---

See logic does vary from individual to individual.

To use objective morallity as an arguement is the weak position.

---

Do you not see where you went wrong there? You've taken the definition for "morally wrong", equated it with "wrong" (in the common sense), and then used that to say unacceptable == morally wrong.

The definition or wrong was taken from a dictionary. One which 'most' people see as being correct.

You took a subset of the definition specifically related to morality, that's immediately obvious when you look at examples like "your test answer was wrong" - That has absofuckinlutely nothing to do with morality.

"Wrong" means "false" or "not good" depending on the context "morally wrong" is a subset of wrong related to social value.

It's still a false equivocation.

---

Um, No. Sorry about that, but I just don't agree. You can rant and rave all day if you like.

---

If something is taboo it only means that a particular society deems it to be unacceptable to them. Again, premarital sex is taboo in some cultures, does that make it morally wrong?

In that culture, for the majority, yes. Generally people who are on the fringes don't have a say and are rarely able to make a difference.

So your're moral relativist? As long as the group in which x happens likes x then x is good. If the group hate x then x is bad?

That makes Killing Jews morally good for the Nazis I hope you realise. And it's inconsistent with moral language, someone who says "x is morally wrong" does not mean "x is morally wrong when we hate x", they mean "x is wrong independent of culture"

Moral relativism is Majority Opinion == Truth, so it's also an argument from popularity.

---

Yes, I am a moral relativist. Who is supposed to determine these universal moral standards you talk of?