(June 23, 2015 at 2:11 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:(June 23, 2015 at 1:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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.
There's no such thing as an objective moral nor is there any such thing as an inherent property. Getting these two things through to a kathy-lick is like trying to nail jello to a concrete wall.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
