My views on objective morality

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You've been conflating matters of opinion and taste with behaviors which are sociable or anti-social. Murder is anti-social, and since sociable behavior is an important component of the human survival imperative for most humans, then murder is bad for most people. When you commit a murder, you commit an offense against society, which is why it doesn't matter what your opinion is or that you enjoyed killing your victim, all societies will outlaw murder. This fact does not in itself make murder, nor rape, nor child exploitation, nor the embezzlement of public funds objectively immoral - no, they are simply anti-social, which society will outlaw because society represents and protects what is social against those who would act against it. Anti-social behavior isn't considered wrong by all, therefore it's not objectively immoral - if it was, then nobody would be killing, raping, embezzling, etc.

This, I mostly agree with, however...

Well of course we have an inherent understanding of sociable vs. anti-social behavor, and that is because we have the genes of animals which are highly evolved to live in complex societies - nothing magical about that.

From here, if you dare (and I know you won't) we can compare anti-social behaviors to Catholic rules, some which Catholics and other Christians want to enforce on all Americans.

C_L has made it clear she doesn't want to force Catholic law on anyone.

There's contraception, which is a no-no to Catholics, but it never harms existing persons, and it helps keep populations at managable levels - therefore, sociable, and most Western countries don't outlaw it, they're definitely not objectively immoral.

I mean, I know you're arguing against objective morality here, so when did C_L say that contraception is objectively immoral? I mean, I don't ever recall her saying that she thinks all morality is objective; just that some morals are.

The same with abortion. So then, CL, how do you reconcile these facts on the above, which you consider to be wrong, but are not by the evidence "objectively wrong"? On forcing unfortunate women to carry an unwanted child to term, even when it ruins her life or harms her physically, this is certainly an anti-social side of your religion, but I know you aren't going to admit that lobbying to strong-arm them with the law is anti-social, for all the harm it causes very real people who you don't want to understand.

I'm sorry, but can you read C_L's mind?

Seriously, I don't think morality is objective; not by a long shot, but you can make that argument just fine without building straw men.

You also declare "fornication" as objectively immoral, but the evidence sheds a sociable light on this when done safely, not anti-social.

When did she declare that?

To begin with, it isn't personal - when I said "you declare", I referred to Catholic teachings, which CL has stated this past week that she accepts, as handed down by the Pope, no cherry-picking. CL has within the past month stated that she believes abortion is wrong, and accepts papal teachings against contraception. She has also stated she believes sex should be delayed until marriage.

I ddn't say that CL stated an opinion on the "objective morality" of anything other than murder and rape, but the thread isn't about murder and rape, Your Highness - it's about objective morality, and this is a construct offered by Xtians in general to justify their doctrines, on everything from fornication to their support of the 10 Commandents. Do you really think CL would restrict the application of her logic to the extreme crimes which she mentioned?

No, I don't think I built any straw men here at all. It's possible that I presumed wrong that CL applies the same logic which she applies to murder likewise to abortion and fornication regarding that silly Xtian construct, but I would not be wrong on how most Xtian apologists have applied it. At worst, I pointed out how she was conflating subjective opinion with objective judgement on whether something is sociable or anti-social, and whether or not she applies the same logic to more controversial "sins", we all got to see what we'd get if it was done that way.

CL says she doesn't want to force Catholic Law on other people, and I believe her. But do you think this means she would object to those who do work to undermine bodily autonomy rights every day in places States such as Texas? Naturally, this would be something altogether different than just being quiet about it in your pew, but if you patronize Frankie's church with your money, then you support what he does with it all the same.