(June 21, 2015 at 1:40 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(June 21, 2015 at 1:22 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Do I think they are wrong? Yes and no. Yes because my morality is different from theirs and no because they are doing what their morality tells them is right. Who am I to judge their morality when I can't prove that mine is more correct. I certainly don't think they're moral from within my moral framework. They don't think you and I are moral from within theirs (how dare you go out without covering you hair) and that is the point. Neither of us thinks the other is moral and neither of us can prove the other wrong because all morality is subjective.
Ok. I appreciate you having the patience with me here, so thank you.
So my take away from this in regards to your views is, there is no concrete, real right/wrong. There is only whatever a particular society deems fit. If a society thinks an act is moral, it is moral. If a society thinks an act is immoral, it's immoral.
Even something like setting a little girl on fire for getting raped cannot be considered objectively immoral, according to your views.
I obviously don't agree, but I can honestly say that I understand why someone who doesn't believe in a higher being would think this. In fact, it makes more sense that you do think this way if you don't believe in a higher power.
Fair enough. Thank you for the discussion on this, and I respect your views.
(June 21, 2015 at 1:22 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: If morality were truly objective, he would have had no basis for saying that they shouldn't stone her. He would have had no alternative morality to present in in place of the current morality, especially considering what they were doing was in line with what gawd said.
Well, first it obviously wasn't in line with what God said because Jesus is God and Jesus told them to stop.
Second, I'm really embarrassed by this but I still don't understand lol.
Youre saying that if morality was truly objective and those men were indeed in the wrong for stoning the woman, Jesus would have no basis for telling them they were in the wrong? I don't get it.
Randy Carson, do you understand?
(June 21, 2015 at 1:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I like the idea of calling Becca rexboccarox.
Oh gosh... I'm sorry
(June 21, 2015 at 1:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Mike-
This is not an answer to your question, but since you have joined the discussion (and because I think you are one of the few here who might actually read and appreciate this), I provide the following link to the section of the Catechism which deals with moral law:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1950
YES. This is what I wanted to post but didn't know if it would be against the rules.
You seem to still be missing the point, if morality were truly objective you would not have two different societies with different sets of morals. The fact that you have two groups of people who cant agree on the morality of raping and burning people only proves that morality is subjective.
