Absolute Morality...again.

Close.... but not quite there. Morality is based on the consensus of the majority for the most part.Democratic societies decides in a consensus on what is right and wrong. Sometimes (like in the US) people have the right to do things that the majority considers immoral.Morality and the law are VERY different things. Can you stop repeating this garbage? Here's how it actually works in the real world. If you do something that many people consider "immoral" you may face social consequences for doing this thing. If we have also decided to make a law against it than you may also face legal consequences. In other cases you may be doing something that many consider moral... yet still face legal consequences due to some silly law.Right and wrong are all relative and it's all opinion. In this country we use a democratic system to determine when "immoral" activity becomes egregious enough to warrant legal penalties.Morality can also change over time as people change their views (showing that it obviously isn't absolute). Slavery is a very good example of this.Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.

sigh... you didn't understand one word I wrote. One country can certainly tell another country that something is right or wrong.... and you will notice that different countries often have very different opinions on what is right and wrong (that's a clue about the non=existence of absolute morality by the way) Sigh.... then why are there SO MANY immoral laws. It's illegal for seniors who can't afford healthcare to get their drugs from canada. This is a clearly immoral law. It's against the law for cancer victims to use medical marijuana... another clearly immoral law. The list goes on and on.Like I said... law and morality are very differnt things that sometimes intersect but often do not. No one is playing any word games... I simply explained to you how laws are made in democratic societies. Morals are exactly what you said... individual opinions as to what is right and wrong. Everyone's morality is valid to themselves. The only consequences of behaviour that others may consider immoral are social consequences. For example... someone who cheats on their wife may be ostracized. However, there is no such things as validity when it comes to morality. However, societies generally have a consensus as to what is generally considered right and wrong.I really don't understand your point... morals are opinions as to what is right and wrong. That's what they are. Laws are different. Laws are a set of rules set up by society for the benefit of all. You can have legal things that are immoral and moral things that are illegal.Sometimes things are considered illegal and immoral... such as murder. Does the morality of society inform the laws that are made? Absolutely... which is why different societies with different morals have different laws.By the way... you still haven't presented one absolute moral..... (probably because there is no such thing).

Morality is shaped by experience, instinct, upbringing and societal influences. Everything you have ever experienced affects your morality. Huh? So I guess the US is immoral because we have been torturing people in Iraq and gitmo.I can tell you what the impact is of people who don't try to apply their morals in a relative fashion.Consider stem cells.... we basically have a group of uneducated, ignorant people against stem cell research because 1. they don't understand it and 2. they don't understand how to apply morality in the context of a situation.The thing is.... these morons don't even realize their morals are relative.They think destroying an embryo is immoral yet they are not against in-vitro fertilization which often results in destroyed embryos.NOW THAT is moral relativismAbE: here's another example of moral relativism.Abortion is either wrong or it isn't..... yet most pro-lifers want abortion banned except in the case of rape or incest.... Huh? I guess abortion is only wrong in certain situations.....Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.

How do dogs know how to swim?How do birds know how to fly?Why don't mammals eat their young? (for the most part at least)etc. etc. etc.

I'm sorry... but this argument is garbage. Do you think opinions don't exist? MORALS ARE OPINIONS as has been shown on this thread multiple times.I think relative morals are fairly easy to understand Again... this is just garbage. Some people thing it's ok... some people don't. To some people it's immoral to some it isn't.There is no universal right or wrong.You keep trying to say that just because morals are relative opinions that they therefore are meaningless and right and wrong don't exist. This is such obivious BS.... How do you think society has worked for 1000s of years? It used to be ok to own slaves... now it isn't. It used to be considered moral... now it isn't. Funny how that works. Do you even understand the subject under discussion here? It is my opinion that they are ignorant and their resistance is immoral. Others have different opinions. We reach consensus in our society through democracy and social interaction. People do decide for themselves what is right or wrong... but there are definite consequences when their view of right and wrong diverges from the consensus.Heck.. there are a lot of things that the majority considers moral that are immoral in my opinion. Unfortunately it's hard to convince people since morals ARE OPINIONS.Ok... just give me ONE... ONE example of a moral that isn't an opinion.ONE..Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : changed tone of post slightly