A critique of moral relativism

Why on earth did homosexuality get brought up? Once again, we see homophobia rearing its ugly head. Once again, nemesis_juggernaut ties homosexuality to an act that has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everybody else goes along with it as if it were perfectly rational to do so.Let's try an experiment: Let's discuss the issue of sex between species without making any reference to any other sexual act.It is amazing that even though the participants here know that bringing up homosexuality in a discussion about bestiality is nothing more than flame fodder, they continue to do it. One can only speculate as to why.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Everyone is a moral relativist. Everyone.The only question is what the parameters of the relativism are.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulus responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Everyone is a moral relativist. Everyone.

---

​

Except the people that do not believe there are multiple equally valid constructions of morality.

---

Except that when you examine their behaviour, they show that they really do. Their own morality is relative. It doesn't really matter what they say. It only matters what they do. If they can't even maintain their own morality without lapsing into relativism, then their claim that they are absolutists fails.The only question is what the parameters are.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

The experiment is complete - see the OP where that is done

---

Incorrect. You, yourself, responded to nemesis_juggernaut's invocation of homosexuality in this thread. It seems that you can't discuss the issue without thinking homosexuality has a legitimate connection to bestiality.I guess, in essence, the experiment is over: You were unable to do so.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

So because I answered a question about relative morality with regards to homosexuality and bestiality that determines that I am unable to discuss bestiality without thinking it has a legitimate connection to homosexuality?

---

Yes. Obviously so. If you didn't think that there was a legitimate connection between homosexuality and bestiality, you would have been dumbstruck at the suggestion that there were. And after you finished spluttering at the complete non sequitur, you would have asked what on earth he was talking about since it makes no sense to bring it up.But you didn't. Instead, you treated the connection between sex between people of the same sex and sex between individuals of different species without batting an eyelash. Ergo, you think there is some sort of connection.

quote:

---

However, since I discussed bestiality in the OP without connecting it in any way to homosexuality, that falsifies your statement that I am unable to do so.

---

Oh, please. One swallow does not make a spring. That fact that there is a post where you didn't bring it up doesn't mean you don't connect the two. You obviously do because when someone else brought it up, you went along with it without hesitation or question.

quote:

---

All you have shown is that I am able discuss the two at the same time, hardly an interesting insight, is it?

---

Incorrect. Instead, it is quite telling. As there is no connection between the two, the fact that you are discussing both indicates that you think there is a connection.

quote:

---

It has hardly the same as 'thinking homosexuality has a legitimate connection to bestiality'

---

On the contrary. It is precisely that. Again, if you didn't think so, you wouldn't have responded to n_j's comment as if it were legitimate.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

There are people that think there is only one morally right course of action in any given situation and we call these people absolutists. You can state that you think they are wrong if you like, but that does not stop them from being absolutists.

---

When they prove themselves to be relativists, it most certainly does. Again, it doesn't matter what they say. It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.

quote:

---

They are still absolutists though, even if their morality is actually relative.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? They can redefine their actions simply by willing them to be what they're not? Never mind that they behave identically to one whose morals are relative...if they simply say they're absolutists, then they are?Are you a Republican or something?

quote:

---

Absolutists point to relativists and show that their morality is absolute.

---

No, they don't. They try, but they don't. This is the same argument as that between creationists and scientists. The creationists claim that they have proven their claims, but they haven't.Classic example: Those who claim to be "pro-life." They are often the same people who are for the death penalty. How can it be that they follow the "absolute" claim that all life is sacred if they also feel that people can be put to death? Simple: They don't believe in the absolute they claim to. Instead, they are relativists: In certain situations, life is not to be taken but in other situations, it can be.Now, obviously not everybody has this particular claim (the official position of the Catholic church, for example is that both abortion and the death penalty are wrong), but if you look closely at anybody, you will find that they don't follow their absolutes. After all, even the Christian god is a relativist: Thou shalt not kill....unless I tell you to.

quote:

---

It's kind of like saying that atheists are really Christians who pretend not to believe because they want to get away with immorality. It's a non-argument.

---

Precisely. There are no absolutists. Everybody is a relativist.Everybody.

quote:

---

Absolutists exist

---

No, they don't.Why do we allow certain things to adults but not to children?Because morality is relative. It depends upon the circumstances.

quote:

---

This thread is only about describing the reasoning behind relative morality

---

Perhaps, but it is being compared to something that doesn't exist. Now, I certainly understand the desire to understand what we are and compare it to other possibilities that don't really exist, but let's not pretend that it is anything other than self-reflection, not a comparison between two things that truly exist.Everyone is a relativist.Everyone.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

You should read a paper by Paul Cameron sometime.

---

Friend, I had the tremendous joy of debating him face to face.Twice.

quote:

---

you'll know that I am not easily dumbstruck in discussions about homosexuailty.

---

You're missing the point. If we're talking about the charge of the electron and somebody pipes up with the conjugation of the Present tense in Spanish, the only sane response is to ask what on earth he's talking about. It is not legitimizing the question.

quote:

---

Except I remember why they were brought up together

---

Except there is no logical way they could be. They have nothing to do with each other.

quote:

---

You said that I was unable to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality which is easily falsified!

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The topic came up and suddenly you were legitimizing the connection. Ergo, you were unable to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality.

quote:

---

I discussed the argument at hand

---

Which had no connection to reality. Why did you legitimize it?

quote:

---

I note with interest that you have also not been able to discuss bestiality without referring to homosexuality in this thread.

---

Incorrect. I've been the one saying it is illogical to try and connect the two. You will note that at no time have I said one way or the other what the morality of bestiality is. You can understand the difference between a discussion and a meta-discussion, yes? I haven't legitimized the connection.

quote:

---

Well - since you can't know what I think I can't prove you wrong.

---

Well, unless you're admitting that you're a troll, I think your words and actions here are indicative of your thoughts. Otherwise, you are having an incredibly hard time expressing your thoughts.

quote:

---

what do you think I connect my own sexual behaviour with?

---

I can only go off of what you write. You seem to think that there is a logical connection to be made between sex between species and sex between people of the same sex. Oh, you have a moralistic reason for why you think one is bad but one is good, but that is neither here nor there. The two have nothing to do with each other and the justifications for one have no relation to the other, whatever they may be.

quote:

---

An absolutist is someone who believes that there are absolute answers to moral questions.

---

It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you do.

quote:

---

Situation A (doesn't matter what it is): An absolutist will think Act A' is either moral or immoral.

---

(*chuckle*)And where have I indicated that I disagree with this definition?All I've done is point out that when push comes to shove, it turns out they don't actually think that.

quote:

---

There has never been nor is there now, a person that believes there is a single objective and absolute moral answer to a moral question.

---

It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you do. Humans are very good at lying to themselves and coming up with excuses when shown that they are behaving in a manner directly opposite to what they claim to believe. But since wishing doesn't make it so, the only conclusion is that there are no absolutists.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

cavediver responds to me:

quote:

---

you may want to do some research through EvC on Mod's own sexuality

---

I already know. What does that have to do with anything?

quote:

---

Of course there are connections between bestiality and homosexuality

---

No, there aren't. Changing the sex of the participants involved in a sexual act doesn't change their species and vice versa. Ergo, they are orthogonal traits.

quote:

---

both entail sexual activity forbidden in the OT.

---

But there are lots of sexual activities forbidden in the OT. We never seem to hear about them when discussing the morality of homosexuality. Why do you think that is?

quote:

---

and Berb's sensitivity to the issue

---

You mean the normal and rational reaction berberry has? It would seem the problem is not with berberry.

quote:

---

Does this mean that we cannot discuss homosexulaity and bestiality in the same paragraph?

---

Not without legitimizing homophobia. There is no connection between the two.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

Well if actual examples of me doing that very thing can't convince you I'm not sure what can.

---

Nice try, but that's my argument to you. If quoting your very words doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.By your logic, if I don't use a particular word on the very first page of a book, then I can legitimately claim that I didn't use the word at all.

quote:

---

I have only discussed homosexuality after someone else brought it up

---

Thus showing that you cannot discuss the topic without making reference to it. If it were otherwise, you would have pointed out that such is a non sequitur. Instead, you legitimized the point and debated it as if it had any sort of logical connection to the discussion at hand.

quote:

---

You've been discussing the two.

---

No, I haven't. I've yet to say one way or the other what the moral position on bestiality is. All I've said is that the connection is nonsensical.

quote:

---

I've been discussing the two to explain how nj was wrong in his conclusions about relative morality - it seemed rather unavoidable if I was going to address what he said.

---

See, we're back to the same problem we've been discussion in the moderation thread: You seem to be incapable of seeing that the problem is not what you say but rather what you do.You're legitimizing the discussion. His example has no bearing on the question of relative morality for bestiality has absolutely no connection to homsoexuality as sex and species are orthogonal traits.You will note, this doesn't state what the moral status of bestiality is. It simply points out that you won't be able to find any justification for it when examining sex among people of various sexes.

quote:

---

You understand the difference between agreeing with someone's points and refuting them, right?

---

Of course. But it doesn't matter if you agree or refute the argument as both are predicated upon the idea that the argument is legitimate in the first place.So your claim that you understand the difference between a discussion and a meta-discussion is trivially proven false. At least in this case, you don't know.

quote:

---

Well, a connection can be drawn between any two things at all if one was asked what the connection was.

---

No, they can't. It's called "orthogonality." You do understand what that means, yes?

quote:

---

I thought it wiser to understand nj's issue and address it rather than avoid it since that would play into his hands.

---

But that's just it: You played right into his hands by legitimizing his argument.Instead, you should have pointed out that his example has no connection to what he's trying to argue but is a non sequitur. You could then discuss the question of moral relativism without having an irrelevant subject involved.

quote:

---

a person's belief can put them in certain philosophical camps even if they are wrong.

---

Irrelevant. There are no absolutists.

quote:

---

Even if someone doesn't act like there is a god, if they believe there is, they are a theist.

---

Huh? Since when did theism turn on acts? The definition of theism is belief. The only criterion for being a theist is to believe, even if that belief doesn't translate into any action differing from one who doesn't.But to claim to be an absolutist, one has to behave in such a way that things that are thought to be morally wrong are avoided as best as can be in every single case it comes up.But nobody does that. Everybody finds an exception to the rule. It doesn't matter that they claim to be an absolutist: Their actions overrule them.

quote:

---

If you now accept that they exist, but that they are wrong then we are in agreement.

---

Nope. They still don't exist.

quote:

---

But denying the existence of absolutists is certainly what it sounds like you are doing.

---

That's because it is precisely what I am doing. I am directly, specifically, and purposefully denying the existence of absolutists.There are people who claim to be absolutists, but we find that they do not practice what they preach. Ergo, they are not actually absolutists no matter how much they protest the contrary. Their actions belie their true beliefs.

quote:

---

The label is about what a person believes or thinks - it is a philosophical position!

---

Of course! But their actions show they don't really believe what they claim they do! Do you seriously not understand this?

quote:

---

Their philosophy put into practice might, under inspection, actually be relativism - but that doesn't stop them from thinking there are absolute moral answers.

---

I never said it wouldn't. But since they don't practice what they preach, it necessarily follows that they aren't what they claim to be.It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you think that discussing the criteria for marriage would indicate that I think there is some question between marrying a lawnmower and marrying the person I'm in love with.

---

If you look to one for the justifications for the other, yes.[putting mathematician hat on](A->B ^ A->C) !-> (B->C)That is, A may lead to B and A may lead to C, but you have to produce the justifications for them independently. You can't rely on B to justify C. You have to go back and start over from scratch.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, they can't. It's called "orthogonality." You do understand what that means, yes?

---

​

Since it is likely that you will probably say that I don't even if I explain it, if you'd like you can explain it's relevance again.

---

"orthogonal": From the Greek "orthos" meaning "straight," "upright," "correct." In common usage, it's a synonym for "perpendicular."What this means is that if you have two lines that are orthogonal, then there is no relation between the two. That is, there is no metric that can be constructed where a change in one produces a corresponding change in the other.Thus, when used colloquially, it's a way of saying that something is irrelevant or unrelated, that this trait provides no insight into the other trait as there is no connection between the two.

quote:

---

I feel that nj would simply feel his point has been proven by our inability to answer it.

---

(*chuckle*)Considering that he hasn't even responded to direct responses to his point, what good can possibly come from legitimizing his claim?

quote:

---

What name do you think I should be using to describe people that believe there is a single moral answer to a given moral question which is objectively true?

---

Phantoms. They don't exist.

quote:

---

Hopefully you've gathered my point: absolutism is a defined by a belief.

---

Incorrect. Absolutism is not theism.

quote:

---

A lot of absolutists say that they themselves fall short of living in the most moral fashion possible.

---

Which is just a rationalization for the realization that they don't actually believe what they claim they do.And if we're going to go off of what they believe, shouldn't we be using what they actually believe and not what they merely say they believe simply because they don't want to be thought of as "one of them"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.

---

​

Not when it comes to discussing what they believe

---

Huh?If they don't actually believe it, why are we discussing it?They can say they believe it all the want but if their actions belie that claim, then they don't really believe it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

You'll have to explain what A, B an C are in the discussion.

---

No, I don't. It's an abstraction: It doesn't matter what A, B, and C are. Just that they're different.For example (A->B) ~-> (B->A). It doesn't matter what A and B are...the logic is always the same: A implies B does not imply that B implies A. I can give you examples of such, but those are specific and may only apply to that one example. If we're going to move on to a more general concept, we have to abandon the specifics for the abstraction.

quote:

---

Yep, there's the definition, now the relevance?

---

You mean you really don't know?If you're just going to play dumb, there really is no point in continuing.

quote:

---

We legitimize the creationists by the existence of this forum.

---

That's because the inquiry into the diversification of life upon this planet is legitimate and various attempts to explain that diversification can be legitimately examined. It may be that the examination leads to a conclusion of, "This explanation is false," but that doesn't delegitimize the examination. That is, after all, how science works: You examine the possibilities, even if they turn out to be wrong, since there is a possibility that they could be right which we won't know until we examine them.But orthogonal points are illegitimate. The conjugation of Spanish verbs is not an explanation for the diversification of life on this planet.

quote:

---

There are no people in this world that believe there are absolute moral answers? That sounds like a handily unfalsifiable position.

---

Incorrect. All you have to do is show me one. Do not confuse the difficulty or impracticality of the task with impossibility.No, not someone who merely says so. I need someone who actually does so and thus lives up to the beliefs they claim to have. If they admit that they don't always do so, then it is clear that they don't believe what they claim to and thus aren't an absolutist.They're just a wannabe.

quote:

---

All we have to do now is examine the actions of every human being that has ever lived and decide if their actions line up with their beliefs.

---

No, that would be shifting the burden of proof. The absolutists are the ones saying that they exist, therefore it is up to them to provide an example of one. The default position is that they don't.Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.

quote:

---

How do we tell if a person is an absolutist if their philosophy includes the fallibility of man to adhere to the absolute standard?

---

That's just a rationalization for the realization that they aren't absolutists. When we examine their behaviour, we find they don't really think that to be true. There are some things for which they are relativist for which they don't think they are "not living up to the standard."

quote:

---

What about absolutists that state that we cannot know exactly what the absolute standard is, but we can try to come up with a good model for it? How do we judge them to see if they are absolutists?

---

Same way as we judge everybody else: By their behaviour. If they don't follow a single standard, then they aren't absolutists. It doesn't matter whether they know what the standard is or not. If they don't follow the same process in every instance, then they are not absolutists.

quote:

---

Even if they are wrong in that there is no absolute moral standard or even if they behave as if there were no absolute moral standard...they can still hold the position that there is an absolute moral standard.

---

Not if they don't think it to be true. And we can find that out simply by examining their behaviour. If they don't actually hold to that standard, then they don't actually think there is an absolute moral standard.That's what's known as "hypocrisy."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

If you don't explain what A,B and C are in the context of this discussion I don't see the relevance to the topic.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Logic has no relevance to the topic?

quote:

---

And exploring human sexuality and marriage contracts is legitimate, isn't it?

---

It isn't when orthognal traits are brought up.Again: [(A->B) ^ (A->C)] ~-> (B->C)It doesn't matter what A, B, and C are. This is a logical statement that is always true. Just because you can justify B from A and you can justify C from A, that doesn't mean you can justify C from B. You have to start over from the beginning and independently justify the implication.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The conjugation of Spanish verbs is not an explanation for the diversification of life on this planet.

---

​

Agreed.

---

And how would you react if someone kept on insisting on bringing it up?And how would you react if someone kept on treating that introduction is completely normal and acceptable, engaging them on the topic as legitimate?

quote:

---

Yes - are you suggesting that people always adhere to their own personal code of morality?

---

Of course. That is a tautology. Their personal code of morality is what defines their behaviour. If they didn't think what they were doing was OK, they wouldn't do it unless forced. And especially if you can talk to them and they can explain why they have made an exception.Take, for example, those that are both against abortion and for the death penalty. They claim that the reason why they can be for death penalty is that criminals have done something wrong while a fetus is still "innocent." So apparently, there is a relativity to the supposed "absolute" of "life is sacred."It isn't like they're trying to weasel out of it...they are just fine with this relative morality...except to have it called "relative morality." Well, wishing doesn't make it so. They can want to be an absolutist, but it is clear that they are not.

quote:

---

If I do something selfish that reduces happiness - does that mean I do not think the moral thing to do is maximise happiness? No

---

Incorrect. It does if you would do it again under the same circumstances and you weren't forced in the first place.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ikabod responds to me:

quote:

---

i can think / belive there is a absolute moral standard , i can then chosse to behave immorally .. its called free will ...

---

Indeed. You freely chose to show that you don't really believe in that absolute moral standard. Otherwise, you wouldn't have done it unless forced. You can feel all the guilt you want afterward, but the fact remains that you freely chose it which means you thought it was a good idea.And thus, you don't really have an absolute standard.

quote:

---

others can belive in a absolute moral code , and can "belive" that they never break it , even if they do ..

---

And thus, they don't really have an absolute standard. Wishing does not make it so.

quote:

---

people can belive in a religious code , totally and absolutely , and yet can behave at variance to that code ...

---

And thus, they prove they don't really believe it.We see this all the time: People who think that something is horrible...until it happens to them and then they will fight to the death.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ikabod responds to me:

quote:

---

sorry but breaking a rule from a moral code does not mean the code is not absolute ..otherwise if you cant break the code there is no immorality

---

Not at all. We even have a term for exactly that concept: Double standard.And that it shatters the concept of the absolute. It can't be "absolute" if there's more than one.

quote:

---

the rules of football are absolute , but the players break them all the time

---

And they get punished for them and they accept the punishment. You do understand the difference between doing something wrong and being willing to accept the consequences and doing something wrong but trying to weasel out of it, yes?

quote:

---

you can still belive in a absolute , and fail to meet its standards .. we are only human .. we are allowed to fail

---

Of course. But we're not talking about simple failure. We're talking about people who fail and insist they didn't really, that the rules don't apply to them.Rush Limbaugh said that anybody addicted to drugs needs to go to jail. Well, he got himself addicted to drugs. Why didn't he immediately turn himself in and insist on being sent to jail?Simple: He's not really an absolutist. He's a relativist.

quote:

---

consider the moral rebel .. the rebel also belives in the absolute moral code .. how else can she/he plan to act in oppersition to it ?

---

Irrelevant. The "moral rebel" is only rebelling against the commonly accepted standard. That doesn't mean he has no standards of his own. And before anybody tries to be clever, the standard can be absolute or relative (in fact, since nobody is an absolutist, it is necessarily relative, but I'll humor the proposition that such a person exists).It is by this logical fallacy that people claim that atheists have no morals when simple inspection shows they do. Just because a person's morality is different, that doesn't mean it is non-existent.

quote:

---

OR do you consider a absolute moral code to have some physical power over people that would prevent them acting against its rule .. like the fundermental laws of physics or chemistry ...

---

Physical? Please. We're talking about philosophy here.When people willingly, consciously, and deliberately engage in activity that they are not being forced into carrying out, then they have a reason for doing so. When that reason contradicts their so-called absolute, then it is clear that they don't really believe in that absolute. They may feel guilty about it afterwards and swear that they'll never do it again, but we all know that's just a rationalization.

quote:

---

OR are you saying some superpowered enitiey would intervent to keep you on the moral path and prevent you making any action in violation of the code ?

---

God? Who said anything about god? Morality doesn't come from god or atheists would have no morals. Since they clearly do, what does god have to do with it?We're talking about morality, not religion.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ikabod responds to me:

quote:

---

its the people who belive in the absolutes , break them and are willing to accept the consequences , these are the people who have absolute moral codes ..

---

But that's the point: There are no such people, not with regard to everything. There are always situations where they don't accept the consequences, where the double standard comes up.

quote:

---

by the way morality is a religion

---

Incorrect. Morality is a philosophy. If morality were a religion, there would be no such thing as atheists. Since atheists do exist and since they do have morality, your premise is trivially proven false.

quote:

---

i think the real issue is you are talking philosophy , im talking humanity

---

Um, you do know that humans are philosophical creatures, yes?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.