Come on guys, I apologize. I am really trying to understand and I'm not a professional ethicist. There are a cornucopia of philosophies, ideas and labels out there that I'm super rusty on. This isn't an appeal to ignorance, just stating my own ignorance. I apologize for misrepresenting your position of moral realism for relativism. You see morals as objective because there are mind-independent facts. Also, in revisiting the OP I was under misconceptions and fully admit to being sloppy and incorrect in my presuppositions and thinking. I really appreciate the time and education put forth to correct my thinking.
So getting back to a common ground theme, we both agree that morality is objective. We probably also agree that something can't be morally true and false. I believe your stance is that what is right or wrong, at one time, can be objectively true or false based on a collection of beliefs or subjectively true or false as individual morality. Is that accurate? We just differ that there necessarily needs to be a morality giver correct?
So getting back to a common ground theme, we both agree that morality is objective. We probably also agree that something can't be morally true and false. I believe your stance is that what is right or wrong, at one time, can be objectively true or false based on a collection of beliefs or subjectively true or false as individual morality. Is that accurate? We just differ that there necessarily needs to be a morality giver correct?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
