Absolute Morality...again.

LOL! I'm a big fan of Sweden, and I've always hoped to visit someday, but I had no idea that Sweden was one of the absolute fundamentals of the universe.

It's obvious that absolute morality doesn't exist, or if it does it's unknowable, because nobody can agree on what those absolutes are.It's obvious that human morality is a fluctuating, amorphous thing. If morality was an absolute condition of the universe, it would be impossible to act immorally. If morals were absolute they would be like the laws of physics.Right and wrong exist independant of absolute morality. The fact that you don't have any ready source for what right and wrong actually are is irrelevant. When you play Monopoly, some games put the Community Chest payments in the middle and pay them when you land on Free Parking, and others don't. If you refuse to pay in in a game where its been established that you must do so, you're still cheating, even though that isn't written in the paper rules. Communities establish their own morals and address transgressions, and individuals look to the community and the community's authorities for moral guidance. Nobody who examines such experiments as the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram Experiment can honestly arrive at any different conclusion.Morality is something we experience as community. It's not a set of absolutes that the universe enforces. Obviously God can't enforce anything as he doesn't exist. If morals were absolute, they would be inviolable and obvious. That they are fungible, negotiatable, and flexible in every instance proves that there are no moral absolutes.

No, he's not. There's no such thing as gods, especially not ones that take an interventionist, moralist stance in human affairs.I guess I don't know how many times that has to be proved, over and over again, before it can be accepted as the basis for discussion.

True, but then, if all morals are relative, there's absolutely no moral prohibition against forcing your morality on the next guy if you think it's that much better than his. Of course, he lacks the same prohibition against resistance, or against doing the same thing to you.Now, some socities (such as ours) may very well enact legal prohibitions against that kind of behavior, destructive as it is - but those are laws, not morals.

Sure. The problem is that both of those participants have agreed to be part of a society of law, of democratic enactment of civil statute, and they have to reach some kind of compromise as to what the law must be. To my mind, of course, that compromise is "people who want abortions get them; people who don't want them don't get them." In other words, the pro-choice position. Democracy. Maybe you've heard of it? Then what's the difference? In this case, it seems as though the proponents of "absolute morality" - who I imagine would be entirely opposed to abortion - are simply seeking a justification to suborn the legal democratic process.

Who, exactly, is saying this?

You're still here, aren't you? You hold an American passport, right? You pay taxes? You vote?Seems like you've agreed to a considerable amount. If you no longer wish to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, you can probably reach Canada in an afternoon's drive from Portland. No, they're not. There's absolutely no barrier to you leaving the country. None whatsoever. Feel free to, by the way. But how do they know that they know the right absolute law? They don't; they have only their relativistic understanding of it.Therefore it's quite obvious that they're merely looking for a justification to suborn American democracy.

But, again, I've proved that it is true. Residency in this country is voluntary; you've voluntarily chosen to reside. Oh, so, indeed, you do choose to live here. Then what the hell are you talking about? No, that's a fact, and my statement of fact is factually correct.Is it just that you can't tell the difference between opinions and facts? Or do you believe that, as a moral relativist, I somehow can't do that? Blah blah blah... in other words "I pick the morals that I want to be absolute, and then I use the assertion of absoluteness to suborn the democratic process." Which is exactly what I said people like you were doing. Thanks for proving me right, I guess.

You're quite mistaken, and I invite you to go back and read more closely. Certainly you were not a participant in any democracy before you were born, that was never my contention. Not so. Didn't you say that it was based on faith? In other words - picking what you want to believe? That's what faith is, after all.

Soon, huh? Maybe in geologic time. Even the extremely conservative estimates of the government - which assume worse-than-average economic growth and greater-than-projected social security demand - guarantee Social Security solvency through 2060 and beyond.But, you know. Don't let facts get in the way of your little wingnut screed. Continue, please.