Objective Morals+

[DeistPaladin]

All I saw was assertion of opinion.

Sorry you missed it then. I might suggest you re-read that post I linked to and let me know if you have any logical arguments against what I offered. Otherwise, I'm going to say "Q.E.D." (I rest my case).

It's part of nature. You suggested that things which are part of the natural order are moral.

Nope. I never said that. You may wish to re-read my post. This is, by the way, called a strawman argument.

Eating animals is.

Very good. I will let a vegan make a case on the morality of eating animals then. We can hear arguments from both sides and come to some conclusion. Until then...

We're talking about whether it's moral to kill sentient creatures. This isn't a case of not knowing everything. You can't answer one of the most basic questions of morality.

The question of whether or not hunting animals for food is moral or not is not a "most basic question of morality."

Nice try. Points for effort.

[John V]

Sorry you missed it then. I might suggest you re-read that post I linked to and let me know if you have any logical arguments against what I offered. Otherwise, I'm going to say "Q.E.D." (I rest my case).

Likewise. I think your dodges and inability to say whether killing sentient creatures is immoral speak for themselves.

[DeistPaladin]

Likewise. I think your dodges and inability to say whether killing sentient creatures is immoral speak for themselves.

I noticed you've said nothing to defend the Bible on any of the disturbing verses and no-brainer issues like its prescription of how to properly rape your sex slaves. You want to talk about "basic moral issues" there you go.

You've also offered nothing against my logical arguments on what morality is aside from that's-just-your-opinion. Speaking of "dodges".

But I don't know everything and can't give you a quick, easy answer to complex moral dilemmas involving the animal rights vs. human rights and whether eating meat is inherently immoral so you're declaring victory, right?

I'll let the readers decide for themselves if you're done as well.

[John V]

I noticed you've said nothing to defend the Bible on any of the disturbing verses and no-brainer issues like its prescription of how to properly rape your sex slaves. You want to talk about "basic moral issues" there you go.

I noted that rape is part of the natural order. The natural order is apparently a valid basis for morality when you think it supports your position, but it's not valid when it goes against your opinion. Go figure.

You've also offered nothing against my logical arguments on what morality is aside from that's-just-your-opinion. Speaking of "dodges".

You made arguments on morality on a social contract basis. My point is that you didn't support that a social contract approach is more moral than any other. You later brought in the harm principle and natural order as bases for morality. Same problem. Yes, you can reason WITHIN any one of these, but you can't show that any one of them (or any ad hoc mixture, as you use) is the correct system. In the end, it always boils down to personal preference.

But I don't know everything and can't give you a quick, easy answer to complex moral dilemmas involving the animal rights vs. human rights and whether eating meat is inherently immoral so you're declaring victory, right?

Yes, that's certainly a big part of it. You are disingenuous to now act as if it's a minor side issue. You previously said:

And so we come to one of many reasons why secular morality is superior to Biblical or other religious-based morality: it focuses like a laser on what the real point of morality is without getting side-tracked by religion's conflict-of-interest.

Morality is a measure of how we treat our fellow sentient beings, acting with empathy and integrity as we would wish to be treated by others. Secularists have the clearest understanding of this point, which is why our focus is the rights and well-being of others.

You used to think that how we treat sentient beings is the laser-focused real point of morality. The fact is that we treat sentient beings other than ourselves pretty much as we please, then complain if god does likewise with us.

[DeistPaladin]

I noticed you've said nothing to defend the Bible on any of the disturbing verses and no-brainer issues like its prescription of how to properly rape your sex slaves. You want to talk about "basic moral issues" there you go.

I noted that rape is part of the natural order.

...and that's your idea of defending the Bible's morality?

Take some advice: you were better off dodging the issue.

The natural order is apparently a valid basis for morality when you think it supports your position, but it's not valid when it goes against your opinion. Go figure.

I've already told you I didn't say that and you distorted what I'd said. The first strawman might be a misunderstanding or just sloppiness. Now that we're on a repeated strawman, it's a sign of dishonesty on your part.

You made arguments on morality on a social contract basis. My point is that you didn't support that a social contract approach is more moral than any other. You later brought in the harm principle and natural order as bases for morality. Same problem. Yes, you can reason WITHIN any one of these, but you can't show that any one of them (or any ad hoc mixture, as you use) is the correct system.

Actually, I think I did. But at least you finally offered a counter-argument. That is, if you consider "nuh-uh" to be a counter-argument.

Yes, that's certainly a big part of it. You are disingenuous to now act as if it's a minor side issue.

Really? Here are the no-brainer issues I brought up discussing Biblical morality:

Whatever no-brainer moral issue you like to bring up, be it slavery, genocide, rape, torture, infanticide, dictatorship, incest, child-abuse, misogyny or persecution, the Bible manages to be on the wrong side of every single one. Far from being a timeless source of moral guidance that could only have come from our Creator, it contains the most frightening and repugnant guidelines that have no place in any civilized society.

Where in my list of no-brainer moral issues did I mention eating meat?

But I don't know the answer to that moral issue so you have your "gotcha", such as it is. There you go.