Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

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.

But your claim that morality is just subjective or relative makes any moral claim, by definition, meaningless. If I said, 'My taste in ice cream is better than yours', it is meaningless, because it's subjective.

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.

How would anyone prove you wrong if it's just their opinion? What could they say to change your mind?

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

What are you talking about? Because someone can change my mind, that somehow means the claim can't be superior? So no scientific theory is better than any other, because it can be disproven?

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.

Yes, but there must be some agreement over a basic moral principle, or you'll get nowhere. For instance, you might say, 'Legalised abortion stops women from dying in botched back-alley jobs.' Then then the other person says, 'I don't care. God's against it.' Language and reasoning rules don't help, because there's no common objective standard to which either of you can appeal!

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!

Okay, well, it's clearly true that others' interests weigh as heavily with them as ours do with us. This can be shown by the fact that, for instance, the same stimuli produce the same level of pain in others, and the same desire to escape that pain. Once we recognise this, we can see that others' interests are as important as our own, so we should therefore do what maximises the number of interests satisfied.

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.

The only thing that is absolute about my ethical system is the claim that others' interests matter. Otherwise, all moral claims are dependent upon showing that an actions fulfils more interests than it hinders.