Objective Morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

Nah I do follow you but don’t agree. Why does it need an ’authority’ to be objective? I think this is the mistake you’re making. To have abosulte morality you need authority but I don’t accept that exists, for objective moral truth authority figures exist. To move from an IS to an OUGHT one simpley does the following transformation (I have already explained why I think its objective).

Morality without authority is no longer morality because a person cannot make an ought or should statement without any authority behind it (well they can but it is utterly meaningless). I still don’t quite follow what you mean by these objective relationships you keep referring to, what are they?

DESIRE – To stay alive and flourish as an individual
FACT/IS - My metabolism naturally requires dead organisms to be ingested to work and prevent my death
OUGHT – I ought to eat dead organisms.. and by extension if that includes omnivorous habits (which in the case of homo sapiens it does), organisms can include other animals
OBJECTIVELY - therefore ‘meat is NOT murder’.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere, I am understanding your position a bit better. I do see some logical misteps you have made here though. SO would the following example also be valid?

DESIRE – To reproduce and pass ones genes on
FACT/IS – Reproducing and passing ones genes on requires sexual intercourse with females of the same species.
OUGHT – This person ought to have sexual intercourse with females of the same species.
OBJECTIVELY - therefore ‘sexual intercourse for reproductive purposes is never wrong even if it is not consensual.

That appears to take the exact same form as the example you gave even though it appears that desirism can therefore condone rape for reproductive purposes.

Not interesting but factual. I admire your grasping of the horns, but objective morality disappears on the will of a sovereign, unaccountable being. As such they are subjective.

Subjectivism only occurs if the individual is whimsical or prone to error, God is neither so this is a form of objective morality.

Well again you’re overplaying this. I demonstrated moving from IS to OUGHT without invoking a god.

I do not believe the way you did it was logically valid though, so the mere fact you did it does not prove anything.

I stand by all I’ve said. Your enthusiasm for justifying the unjustifiable in these horrific passages is exactly why I can lay claim to the ‘objective moral high ground’ and you cannot. What difference does it make whether it has happened, will happen, or is happening.

It makes a huge difference. Saying an event will happen is not condoning that event, you have yet to provide a verse that condones anything like rape, you have only pointed to a verse that predicts that rape and violence will occur, and it did.

Do you condone the justification of rape in the bible in the past, present or future event?

You have not provided any passage that condones rape, so this is a completely irrelevant question.

Using your example would you advise those who may (but haven’t) committed sexual assaults in Detroit that it is OK, because the bible indicates so?

The Bible never indicates it is ok, that’s the whole point.

The bible says what it says,

So then why do you keep asserting it says something it doesn’t? Since you claim it says what it says, show me the verse that clearly says “Rape is good Mmmk?” rather than engaging in mental gymnastics to prove something that is not there. You have not presented any verse that condones rape.

To be fair to the Marcionites at least they advised starting again, even though their theology was equally bonkers to orthodoxy.

I smell Christopher Hitchens! Do you really think he is the best source to use for church history?