Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
But nowhere have I suggested that "moral preferences" are analogous to "food preferences." You are, again, arguing from incredulity/outrage/assertion. You STILL have not made the case.
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Seer, you are apparently not seeing the problem with your argument. It is simple: you don't have one. All you have is the repeated assertion that a thing ONLY has meaning if it is universal/absolute, and several flawed analogies to attempt to link subjective morality with whimsical preferences. You are arguing from incredulity and outrage. You are not making, IMO, a coherent argument for why morality must be universal/absolute or it fails. You are not making an argument at all - you just assert, over and over and over again.
I have found this to be true, in general, of most people who hold this absolute/universal moral stance. At the end of the day, all they can do is repeat some variation of the same mantra: "subjective morality is meaningless because it's not universal/absolute." The vast majority of your statements boil down to this - but you have never shown, in any argument, why this must be so.
Comment