Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
So - you see me as locking myself away from a source of great wisdom, and I see you as locking yourself to an ancient creed that is relevant in some places, and irrelevant - even harmful - in others. But you will never see that because you are "locked in."
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Originally posted by seer
View Post
So try this, Seer - explain why relative/subjective moral frameworks are not viable without pointing out (again) that they cannot arrive at absolute/objective conclusions. And explain why moral codes are being held to a different standard than legal ones. After all - they share a great deal in common. They are derived by sentient beings. They govern action. They establish a norm. About the only thing they do not share in common is that morality does not specify a consequence, and laws typically do (i.e., if you steal something with X value the punishment is Y.).
Comment