You got that wrong Joe. I have no moral obligation to respond to your posts.
Even when you respond to me, you're responding to someone else's post. Nevertheless, I didn't say that you had a moral obligation to respond to me. Given your position that morality doesn't exist, it would have been odd indeed for me to suggest that you had a moral obligation to respond. After all, you don't have a moral obligation to do anything
-- at least according to you.
Granted, you claim to have a moral code that you obey. But even the most cursory examination reveals your moral code to be nothing more than personal preference. For instance, you prefer
a society where no one murders anyone else, and you then exalt that preference into a moral obligation not to murder. Don't, however, delude yourself: it's still just a personal preference. If, tomorrow, you decide that you are entitled to a personal exception from the "nobody gets to murder anyone else" rule, there's nothing that would stop you from adopting it -- certainly not any kind of objective moral code.
And that's why you're having such obvious difficulty answering Thomas
's hypothetical. You dislike child marriage, but you've already boxed yourself into a position where you're supposed to respect other cultures' moral codes, so you can't, in any kind of consistent manner, claim that child marriage in a society that permits such marriages is immoral
. On a visceral level, you dislike it, but because of your moral relativism, you can't say that it's immoral for that society. Yet there's no dilemma here. Since your morality resides on the visceral level, you needn't ask "what is my obligation here?" but only "what does my gut tell me?"
If you are here to "win" an internet argument, then you aren't really clear on the concept.
Rest assured, I'm not here to win any arguments. That would be too easy.