No they don't.



So? How does that prove absolute morals?



How?



So people's views of right and wrong differ... How does it follow that absolute morality exists from this?



That is what has been taught as peaceful and respectful. If there were an innate sense of this then there would be no need for the teacher(Jesus/Ghandi/Buddha/Lao Tzu/etc.).



No they do not. Even if they did, an agreement does not constitute an absolute moral?

You refuted nothing in my post. Quote me and develop an argument from what I write.





Debate the topic. Show me how harm necessarily equates to the guilt of the one harming.

Address this...



That definition covers every imaginable situation. Do you see a problem with our using it?

..Frankly, THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTE -- EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG !

___________ EVERYTHING'S RELATIVE___________

* * * IN CERTAIN EXTREME (i.e. Life & Death) SITUATIONS, *EVERYONE* IS CAPABLE OF KILLING THE OTHER -- FOR THE SAKE OF SAVING ONE'S OWN LIFE!!! * * *

. . . Otherwise, of course, killing is terrible!!!

Your statement "THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTE -- EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG !" is a statement of absolute truth. So I have to wonder if you believe that absolute truth exists, why not moral absolutes?

Of course not. The moment I agreed to that incredibly flawed definition, you would have said "What if someone doesn't perceive their actions as harmful? By the agreed upon definition, that would mean they didn't cause harm."

Sorry man, but I'll just use a dictionary definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harm


Perception or opinions are irrelevant. Either someone is harmed or not, it's not a subjective truth. If an event happens, it is objectively true that it happened regardless of if it was perceived or interpreted as harmful.

Ok.

Now go from your definition of harm to wrong.

Show me.

That's it? Just a gratuitous assertion? Okay..."Yes they do".

But let me elaborate. No society condones murder. They might have different definitions of what is a murder, but they all agree that the intentional killing of someone that the society deems to be innocent is wrong.



It proves that they don't actually believe in relative morality. An American woman can claim to believe in relative morality, but let her go to Pakistan and get raped for being in public without a burkha...Suddenly, morality wouldn't be so relative and she would decry the action as wrong. If she truly believed in relative morality, should would have no grounds on which to base her complaint. Such punishments are accepted in parts of Pakistan.



I'll give you a perfect example. Many of you believe in relative morality. If I started judging you guys and saying that your lifestyles were immoral, you would be offended. Why? You would say "Judging is wrong". That's proof that you push your morals onto others. You insist that you not be judged for your actions.



If morals were relative to the culture or society, there would be no dissenters. Dissenters frequently dissent by reaching towards a higher good, which is indicative of moral absolutes.



Wrong. People often fail to live up to their own moral standards. We point to people who lived especially good or moral lives as people whom we should try to be more like. One can be driven to excel in any particular human activity and still idolize the achievements of another in that field of activity.



Yes, they do. What sane person believes that they should be treated better than they treat others? Maybe someone with a position of great power, but then they probably suffer of a disorder of the ego like Narcissism.

Show you what exactly? Why harming another is wrong?

We've already been over this. Why can't I answer the question once and move on? The answer has been "NO" all along, but you keep pounding on this point, as if it makes you right.

Okay, last time and this time, I'll use scripture.

Genesis 9:6


Because God made us in his image and each of us belongs to God as his creations.

I'm sure my answer isn't any good for you, but at the same time, I know you can't answer your own question.

You see, there really is no rational reason for many of our behaviors and morals, but they just exist. Why don't we hurt animals for fun? Why don't we steal from our enemies? Why don't we use rape during wars? While some have done these actions, almost everyone agrees that they are wrong. The fact that someone(s) has their own moral code that allows these actions is not proof that moral absolutes exist. Dissenters within these societies or religions who say that these actions are wrong and shouldn't be done are evidence that moral absolutes do exist and morality's that allow them are simply offering excuses.

Your conclusions do not follow from your arguments, but there is so much fallacious garbage to address that I would rather not.

I am done here.

Unless you can show how an action goes from what is to what ought to be, you have shown nothing to be considered as logical grounds for your claim.

Hume's guillotine. Study it, and you may improve your argument.

Sorry, you must've misinterpreted my post, the key phrase of which is "____EVERYTHING'S RELATIVE!___ -- even the phrase itself may be absolutely true relative Only the phillosophycal discussion...
However, there's a huge stretch from a statement of relatively absolute truth to relatively moral absolutes!!!

Really? So truth can be absolutely true and relative? How does that work exactly. It's either absolutely true or relative.

God-damn spider...

Truth is a property of a statement. A statement is completely dependent upon language. Language is man-made, therefore truth is also... completely man-made.

That's too bad, I thought we were getting somewhere. Maybe tomorrow you'll feel like explaining why you feel my arguments were fallacious.

[quote
Unless you can show how an action goes from what is to what ought to be, you have shown nothing to be considered as logical grounds for your claim.

Hume's guillotine. Study it, and you may improve your argument.




Oh, so you make the rules? See, the problem is that you can't prove that moral relatives exist either. But I can give some pretty heavy evidence for my side. There isn't even a living moral relativist when you get down to brass tacks. Heck, some of you don't even know what the term means.

What a fallacious definition of truth.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Truth


If your statement were true, then the universe came into existence when humans first developed language. Because it's true that the universe exist, right? But how did humans develop language, if it wasn't true that humans existed until they developed language...

Your statement is self refuting.

I'm not sure what you were getting at, but you missed the mark.

Pearls to swine...

That's a pejorative and ad hominem!

Just teasing man, I know the feeling and have experienced it regularly.

I figured you could relate. I believe you have good intentions spider. I respect that.



I am finished here though. It is too one-sided to be considered a discussion.

Be well.

Sorry about that, but you guys do take the most radical and irrational of available positions on most subjects. I don't mean to be hard on you guys, but some of this stuff is really so simple even children understand it. I know that you are the product of your environment, but there comes a time that you have to stop accepting everything you've been taught by rote.

Ok.

Thanks for your personal concern for us...

thank you! i dont nessasarly agree but your tone was sooo much better!

______________HISTORY OF SPEECH______________

Four prehistoric men sit in the cave after a good dinner:

- the first one stretches out and says: WA-WA-WA!

- the second one stretches out and says: NNA-NNA-NNA!

- the third one stretches out and says: FAH-FAH-FAH!

- the forth one, who's had hick-ups, stretches out and says: WANNA FAH'k!