(June 23, 2015 at 1:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(June 23, 2015 at 1:30 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Oh, believe me; I get that, but I'm just going off your own posts in this thread that's about whether morality is objective or not, and with every single post you've made, it's quite clear you either don't understand what objective means, or you don't actually believe in it.
What do you mean? Can you give me an example that would show that I don't understand or don't know? Another possibility is that you don't understand the concept I am trying to explain. ;-)
You've explained your position a hundred times, and it's been explained to you a hundred times why what you're talking about isn't actually objective at all. Just because you call it that doesn't make it so. Bottom line: the concept you've "explained" so far is not objective morality; not even close.
For example:
"Theft is an objective immorality."
"Oh? You can't think of any time theft can be moral?"
"Oh, well, it's ok if someone is hungry, as long as they don't take too much."
"But you said it was objective..."
"Well, it's still immoral, but that's ok because those people aren't culpable."
So, if people aren't culpable for some of their immoral acts, what's the point of having "objective" morals at all? In other words, not only do they not exist, they can't exist.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
