real life wrote:Setanta wrote: My statement does not concern itself with what is or is not "moral," nor how to determine what is or is not "moral." .
Your definition of the basis of morality would certainly affect what is and is not moral, and how it is determined.
No, it wouldn't. It simply notes how moral judgments are formed, which is subjectively. It in no wise defines what will or will not be determined to be moral.
Quote:But your earlier attempts on this:
Setanta wrote:real life wrote:"All moral judgements are subjective."
is an absolute statement
Kind of slow, ain'tcha?
It's a subjective statement
Setanta wrote: I don't deny that the statement is absolute.
leaves little hope that you will be better able to defend your statement now than then.
That it is an absolute statement does not alter that it is a subjective statement. Which is why i consider you to be slow.
Quote:The statement
"All moral judgements are subjective"
is set forth as a judgement of the origin and hence the content ('all moral judgements are just your opinion') of ALL moral judgements.
It is my judgment that all moral judgments are subjective, and i have explained why i make that claim. You have never bothered to argue the validity of the statement in terms of my explanation--and that is because you wish to avoid being forced to admit that you consider morality to be objectively absolute because it is the creation of your imaginary friend. It does not judge the content of moral judgments (one of your more idiotic recent claims) because it does not comment on whether or not moral judgments are good or bad, right or wrong. You're trying to set up a basis to once more claim that the statement itself is a moral judgment, something which have failed and continue to fail to do. It certainly concerns itself with the origin of moral judgment. It is completely mute on the
content of moral judgment. You're going for emotive points here--i never wrote anything remotely resembling "all moral judgments are
just your opinion"--which would be an attempt to belittle moral judgments by an inferential slur on the value of a judgment arising from individual subjectivity. Once again, you're attempting to prepare the ground for a false claim that the statement is itself a moral judgment. Too bad you fail to make your case.
Quote:How can this be defined as other than a moral judgement itself? That is precisely what it is. The statement is a presumption to define all moral choices and decisions as neither 'moral' nor 'immoral', but only as opinion.
That is moral judgement at it's most basic (though it's contradictory).
Bingo ! ! ! Once again, without a logical basis, you attempt to claim that the statement itself is a moral judgment. To be a moral judgment, it would have to partake of the nature of morality. I'm not going to run off to get another dictionary definition of moral or morality, because you don't have the courage or the honesty to address the implication of those definitions. Using an expression such as "only opinion" is a feeble attempt on your part to describe the "moral judgment" made in stating that all moral judgments are subjective. It is a failed attempt, however, because the statement has no modifiers which value or devalue the judgments. I have not stated that moral judgments are good or bad, right or wrong--i have assigned no value, "moral" or otherwise, to moral judgments. I have simply taken note of their origin. You consistently fail to make your false point that there is contradiction, because you can only do so by attributing to my statement a character which it does not possess.
You are not arguing logically.
Quote:The contradiction of course, is in the fact that this statement which denies the existence of moral absolutes, is itself stated as a moral absolute.
No, it is not. The statement does not judge the "morality" of moral judgments, it simply notes their origin.
Quote:One need not even profess a theistic position to see the obvious contradiction in the moral relativists position.
The contradiction you allege is not even apparent, much less obvious--it does not exist. As is so often the case, you utterly fail to make your case when you attempt to do so on a logical basis.
******************************************
You want to argue against the statement that moral judgments are subjective, but you don't want to discuss the reason which i have given for the statement. You wish to attempt to discredit my statement, without being obliged to offer a coherent alternative explanation for the origin of moral judgment. That is intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.
If you deny that moral judgments are subjective, how do you account for them? What do you allege is the provenance of moral judgment?
Try not to weasel out this time, "real life."
(emoticon replaced to combat censorship by the arbiters of good taste)
