Objective Morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

Which is often, if not always, considered in a court of law as well as in any discussion of morality.

That’s the is/ought fallacy, you can’t reason from the way the court system does things to the way morality should be considering the court system is based off of concepts of morality (Judeo-Christian ones that do punish thought crime). Account for morality given your worldview, not mine.

Shooting someone dead with malice of forethought is murder 1.
Shooting someone dead in the fit of passion is murder 2.
Shooting someone dead in a moment of negligence is manslaughter.
Shooting someone dead in self defense is justifiable homicide.

Again, this is all consistent with my worldview because God punishes people for intent, you have not accounted for the punishing of thought crime given your worldview though.

Really, I feel like I'm teaching remedial ethics here. This is embarrassing that I even have to elaborate on these issues. You amaze me with your inability to wrap your brain around no-brainer moral issues.

Your irrational thinking is what amazes me; this is just a red herring fallacy. I can account for all of these things given my views on morality, I am asking you to account for them given yours. So saying I don’t know why certain things are wrong is absurd sense I already have a reason for believing they are wrong. You have failed to even account for simple moral issues like adultery given your worldview which is what is really embarrassing.

The rest of your post I'm not commenting on because I've told you enough times already about empathy, the social contract, about how we're community beings, etc. I really get tired of repeating myself. If you still don't get it, go take a basic college course in ethics. I'm sure your local community college might be able to help.

I am getting tired of you committing the is/ought fallacy, you can’t reason from the fact that most humans feel empathy towards others to a moral statement that most humans should behave that way. I guess I will just mark down morality as just another thing you believe in but can’t account for given your worldview. The list is growing….

@SW. You are just begging the question on naturalism. Reality is absolute axiomatically. Existence, exists and does so independently of the will of consciousness. Thus necessarily our ability to comprehend and reason on that reality means we establish objective truth.

So you are saying rationality is merely a conventional product of the human mind depending upon how it comprehends reality?

The cartoon universe of theism where one will (a god) can change reality whimsically, hardly provides a rock solid foundation for induction, morality or anything.

It’s a good thing we live in a universe created by the Christian God and not some other god who is is whimsical then isn’t it?

It's just special pleading on top of a meaningless concept to turn round and claim that because it's god will it makes it OK. You're stuck on the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. Natural ethical systems can therefore be objective, theists ones cannot be. So you still need to demonstrate the contrary if you want to then ask "what makes it wrong if no - one sees it questions".

First I’d like for you to account for these natural ethical laws given your naturalistic worldview, are they material? Immaterial? Describe them a bit more for me please.

Your moral judgements clearly don't tally with those of the bible, in all cases. You can squirm and wriggle all you like ( like we didn't see that coming). But the words mean what they say. The morality exposed in them is abhorrent and only natural ethical systems can be relied upon to make solid judgements and xtians borrow from them every day.

This is your response to all of the Bible verses I explained to you? Seriously? I thought I explained them pretty well actually. Which one did you struggle over?

To rationalize the bible to say god wills it is OK, is to abandon your own moral autonomy. This is exactly the point I made and you have amply demonstrated. This in itself renders theistic morality an oxymoron.

How so?

I know fundies don't like to bothered with what scientists say, but the American Psychological Association disagrees with your definition:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

If you are going to try to argue against scripture then use the definitions that scripture uses, to do anything otherwise is equivocation. Scripture forbids the act of homosexuality.

I don't know why you think you're qualified to judge whether or not love has anything to do with it. Again, I can tell you from personal experience that the emotions are the same. As for the physical act, the distinction between sex with the same gender and with the opposite gender is more of a variation on a theme than a significantly different experience.

Whether it involves love or not is irrelevant, the act is what is forbidden, a father may really love his daughter, but engaging in sexual behavior with her is wrong for the exact same reason as the act of homosexuality, God forbids both.

So since body parts are the only distinction, why does the similarity make either the emotions or act evil?

The act violates God’s decreed moral law, therefore it is morally wrong.