pop morality

[Esquilax]

using the filter of pop morality your culture programmed you with. My question asks what if Nazi germany programmed you from birth? What in your bag-o-trix (if anything) would have kept you from marching the jews into death camps, like the vast majority of the generation/soceity did?

The facts don't have a filter, Drich. That the Nazi claims regarding the Jews were factually wrong, both at a genetic, societal, and historical level, does not change depending on where I was born. Considering the verifiable data would lead one to the conclusion that the Nazis were wrong; that someone might be indoctrinated into failing to do that in favor of dealing in their inculcated preconceptions is not a failure for what I'm suggesting any more than someone disagreeing with your biblical morality is a failure for yours.

If I tell you that my moral framework comes from a rational consideration of the facts, saying "yeah, but what if someone didn't rationally consider the facts, huh?" is not a rebuttal of that framework.

again the real world looking which societal/generational set of glasses?

No glasses. No biases. You look at the facts, that which can be verified, not "the facts according to X, Y, and Z."

Again, Homosexuality 'morality' is completely based on what or how popular culture defines it. 50 years ago not only was it immoral it was even criminal in certain states. So no doubt their, at that place and at that time pop morality defined being gay as immoral. However now opposing homosexuality is the immoral behavior.

Are you just going to ignore everything that I said, while attempting to refute what I said? At the time that being gay was considered immoral, that moral claim was wrong. There was, at that time, as now, a moral claim regarding homosexuality that is right, but society then was not accepting of that claim. Now, happily, we have moved on to accept the correct claim. What determines which claim is correct? The facts! Were one to consider the claims made about homosexuality as justification for calling it immoral 50 years ago, what you would find is that not a one of them aligns with the evidence: they all relied upon things that are objectively wrong. How can you have a morally valid conclusion if the justification for it is literally incorrect?

That said Homosexual behavior will always be an unrighteous sexual act. Which again 'morality' is simply man's version of god's righteousness. It our personal sense of righteousness or as He described it Self righteousness.

Why, without just asserting that it's god's opinion, is homosexuality wrong?

if you want to put that logic and reason to the test I ask you to answer the 'hypothetical' I asked crossless1 a few posts back.

Why bother? All it's going to be is "I've found a single piffling possible exception to what you're saying, therefore the entire argument is invalid."

Pop morality is not 'ineffective morality.' Is what ever popular culture deems moral. morality effectivness is not what i am questioning here.

Except, again, I don't accept that whatever culture deems moral, is moral. I'm appealing to the objective reality that these cultures coexist in. Do you disagree that we live in a real world that doesn't change depending on what we think of it?

I am asking you and people like you, that without God's righteousness to anchor your ideas of right and wrong/your morality, and your morality simply hangs on what society tells you is right and wrong how will you know when and if society makes a hard left turn into evil Like Nazi Germany did? I pointed out that the Germans did not see themselves as evil, but being moral up right citizens, just like the Americans responsible for the whole sale slaughter of Indians and or the Aussie slaughter of its indigenous people.

Reality. It'll always be there to correct us. Were the claims of a Jewish conspiracy that Hitler used to justify the holocaust true, or false? Why, they were false, and hence, any moral claim made on the basis of them were similarly false. Were the claims made about the sub-humanity of the Aboriginal people that white settlers used to justify their mistreatment of them true, or false? Oh, they were false too: turns out that genetically there wasn't a great amount of difference between the settles and the Aborigines. Therefore, how could a moral claim made on those bases be true, if the bases themselves weren't? It's like if you were to make a moral judgment on the idea that people can grow back limbs: it's okay to dismember people, since they'll just grow back their limbs like a starfish, right?

... Except that people verifiably do not grow back their limbs, we're biologically incapable of that. Given this, in what sense would a moral idea based on an untrue statement be correct?

Also, how is "my morality is based on whatever god thinks," any better than the "my morality is based on society," claim that you're deriding here? Oh, and you can't just assume your conclusion or make a circular argument, nor can you present claims you can't demonstrate, in justifying the difference. So go right ahead: how are god's opinions superior to society's?