(July 19, 2015 at 2:52 pm)Nestor Wrote: The original point was whether or not disagreement between peoples regarding the morality of actions suggests that objective goods do not exist --- meaning that moral statements are just opinions with no truth value --- or if rather there are competing beliefs wherein some can truly be wrong to the exclusion of others. The only purpose of clarifying the semantic difference was that you seemed to misunderstand the distinction I was making in my response to the idea of relativism. If you can see that, it makes no difference to me whether you choose to call something an opinion or a belief, though I think the latter has connotations not attached to the former.
Truth is a funny word. In some respects, even 'truth' can be subjective.
The 'truth' is that murder is immoral, but that is in our society today.
There may be a society in which murder is not immoral and their 'truth' would be different than ours.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
