Theistic morality

[Purple Rabbit]

Oh, I can condemn those acts from within my moral view just as you can from your allegedly objective moral framework. The only difference would be that you claim absoluteness, IOW you're right and the others are wrong and that's an absolute.

But if it's just your moral framework, it's meaningless.

It's time to put some arguments to that statement. I gave you examples, I showed you meaning, I explained you how the confrontation of frameworks playes out and you just state that it all is meaningless. Restating your claim is not argument, you should do better than that.

You can't claim superiority.

Are you serious? Why should I want to claim superiority? I prefer an open mind. I prefer the possibility that I can be proven wrong. I prefer critical thinking over an apriori claim of superiority.

It's not an absolute, because if people could show me that their way is ultimately more beneficial, then my mind would be changed.

And out goes your alleged superiority! Thrashed, pawned and dissed.

Of course, condemning isn't going to help. Informed reasoning, though, presupposes some objective standard to which we can appeal. If, as you say, morality is just what society agrees upon, then all you can say is, 'That's what your society thinks, this is what mine thinks.'

Informed reasoning supposes language and reasoning rules but not agreement on moral values up front. If language and basic reasoning is lacking than communication is not possible, end of story, your story and my story. If these things are present, the informed reasoning part can be used to examen the rationale.
With your alleged yet unproven objectivistic framework you would face the same difficulties 'That's what your society thinks, this is what mine thinks.' It really is totally absurd that you claim that your claim accomplishes anything at all. Also it is just your claim. You cannot prove that it is objective. So put some meat to the bone Omnissiunt and give your evidence that you have an objective moral framework. You may start right now!

Non sequitur. It does not follow from an absence of an objective moral standard that moral standards cannot influence each other or cannot be changed. Moral standards change because they influence each other, moral rationale is (re)examined in the process and goals are reformulated as a result of trading and negotiating processes (if you grant me this I'll grant you that). The claim of an absolute standard is what inhibits moral change more than anything. That is the claim of traditional christianity, that is the claim of Judaism, that is the claim of muslim fundamentalism, that is the claim of any totalitarian state. Stating the immutable is what constitutes fundamentalistic dogma and inhibits moral evolution.

Again, you're conflating moral objectivism, or moral realism, with moral absolutism. Moral absolutism would state, 'Stealing is always wrong.' A moral realist, though, could say, 'Stealing is sometimes wrong, depending on the consequences.' You talk of moral rationale, but what is this rationale you're referring to, if morality is just society's view or a personally held view? If, though, we say that what's moral is what benefits most people, and harms fewest people, then we have a rationale from which we can work out how best to run society.

To claim objectivism is claiming absolutism. It IS the same. If a statement is 100% objective fact there is nothing it depends on, it is valid on earth and valid on a planet near Sagittarius A, it is valid in this universe and valid in every other possible universe, it is valid under circumstance A and valid under circumstance B, it is valid for you and valid for Bin Laden. There is no conflation in equaling objectivistic moral truth to absolute moral truth. If you think they are different please provide an example of an objective moral fact that is not abolute. Moral realism is quite distinct from moral objectivism. I'd say that moral realism is more a kind of moral relativism than an objective moral.