So, I've gotten myself into yet another debate on moral absolutism. This one is taking the form of asking where inalienable rights come from, and if they even exist. Still, it is playing out exactly the way my last two debates on morality have.
They always go pretty much this way:
Me: I don't believe morality is absolute because I don't see what would cause it.
Them: If morality comes from you, then it is just subject to change. It's just opinions.
Me: Correct, but that doesn't stop people from collectively holding similar opinions.
Them: But if it comes from you, it's just chemicals in your brain. It's all meaningless.
Me: Sort of. We take what meaning we want from it.
Them: Is murder wrong, Rob?
Me: Objectively, no. That being said, that doesn't stop almost everyone from subjectively disagreeing.
Them: But it's just opinions! Is slavery wrong, Rob?
Me: Again, objectively, no. Also, note that it wasn't that long ago that society thought that it was okay.
Them: But then anyone could change their opinion! They could just decide rape is okay!
Me: Yes, but thankfully we seem to be moving away from that.
Them: But it's all just opinions! None of it matters!
Me: We've been over this. It matters as much as each of us wants it to.
Them: Is pedophilia wrong, Rob? What would you think if someone raped your kid?
Me:![[Image: skeptical-sm_zps59fc1324.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i175.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw139%2Frobbypants%2Fskeptical-sm_zps59fc1324.png)
But yeah, that's pretty much how they all go. They loop between stating things that I ultimately agree with, and then asking if atrocious things are wrong. So, they'll start stating things that I believe are true, but... that's as far as it goes. Ever. So far as I can tell, they find what I'm saying so ridiculous that they don't feel the need to counter. The best I can guess, they're implying one of two things:
1) They personally find this distasteful and prefer a world with objective morality. Fine, but that's just wishful thinking. Reality doesn't conform to the wishes of individuals.
2) They believe that if morality were subjective that people would be out raping and stealing and killing left and right. I don't know why they believe this, but I'm just guessing it. Who knows? They sure as hell aren't telling me!
What gets more annoying is any time I see that this is happening and start pressing them to further explain themselves... they never do! I don't know if they just don't grasp the topic at hand, find me so stupid that they don't want to waste their time, or if they can tell that they're about to walk into something that would require an actual defensible position. Fucking fuck.
Does anyone else have any similar experiences? Have you gotten them to actually explain their position beyond this?
I think I may have found a theistic topic I hate more than flood apologetics. Yay.
They always go pretty much this way:
Me: I don't believe morality is absolute because I don't see what would cause it.
Them: If morality comes from you, then it is just subject to change. It's just opinions.
Me: Correct, but that doesn't stop people from collectively holding similar opinions.
Them: But if it comes from you, it's just chemicals in your brain. It's all meaningless.
Me: Sort of. We take what meaning we want from it.
Them: Is murder wrong, Rob?
Me: Objectively, no. That being said, that doesn't stop almost everyone from subjectively disagreeing.
Them: But it's just opinions! Is slavery wrong, Rob?
Me: Again, objectively, no. Also, note that it wasn't that long ago that society thought that it was okay.
Them: But then anyone could change their opinion! They could just decide rape is okay!
Me: Yes, but thankfully we seem to be moving away from that.
Them: But it's all just opinions! None of it matters!
Me: We've been over this. It matters as much as each of us wants it to.
Them: Is pedophilia wrong, Rob? What would you think if someone raped your kid?
Me:
But yeah, that's pretty much how they all go. They loop between stating things that I ultimately agree with, and then asking if atrocious things are wrong. So, they'll start stating things that I believe are true, but... that's as far as it goes. Ever. So far as I can tell, they find what I'm saying so ridiculous that they don't feel the need to counter. The best I can guess, they're implying one of two things:
1) They personally find this distasteful and prefer a world with objective morality. Fine, but that's just wishful thinking. Reality doesn't conform to the wishes of individuals.
2) They believe that if morality were subjective that people would be out raping and stealing and killing left and right. I don't know why they believe this, but I'm just guessing it. Who knows? They sure as hell aren't telling me!
What gets more annoying is any time I see that this is happening and start pressing them to further explain themselves... they never do! I don't know if they just don't grasp the topic at hand, find me so stupid that they don't want to waste their time, or if they can tell that they're about to walk into something that would require an actual defensible position. Fucking fuck.
Does anyone else have any similar experiences? Have you gotten them to actually explain their position beyond this?
I think I may have found a theistic topic I hate more than flood apologetics. Yay.
