Absolute Morality...again.

No, you haven't answered. Also, since when did you become so coy about your personal attitudes? This forum is stacked full of your attitudes! No Faith, you're just hedging. I'm not personalising anything! I simply asked if you can accept the possibility that you (as a fallible human to use your term) might be wrong on the subject of absolute morality.I, for may part, fully accept that my knowledge has its limits. I also fully accept that it is perfectly possible to be totally wrong about many thngs that I believe to be true.I ask you again, do you or do you not accept that you may be wrong with regard to absolute morality?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

I have made no such attack and you know it. No, you have made a decision to avoid answering THIS question.I have asked no personal questions and you know it, Faith. You are clearly hedging.I'll ask again. Do you accept (as a fallible human, to use your term) that it is merely possible for you to be misguided about absolute morality?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

[deleted]Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Faith, message 218 awaits your attention.

Please don't insult both our intelligences. You know the question was not a personal one. Also, you chose to tackle my assumption (being fully aware of its content) and then when you were forced to admit your position you bailed out. Not necessarily a "personal" statement, but aside from that you are right. It's called socratic enquiry!Socratic method - Wikipedia It certainly isn't foul play. You boxed yourself in with your OWN statements. I think you are aware of this.In any case your failure to answer leads me to draw the conclusion that you do after all hold the view that absolute morality conforms to your worldview.

The issue at hand was "do those whole belive in absolute morals assume that it fits their worldview?"You said I was wrong to make such an assumtion (drawing on your OWN experience) and I, in response, asked some very broad questions. What's the problem?Face it Faith, you just didn't like where your OWN statements lead you.

Because they are broadly directed by our biology and psychology. We are social animals thay rely on a group structures to survive. Killing one of your own group is "wrong" because it does not benefit the group. We also build personal bonds that also help make such behavior emotionally difficult.Killing a member of a rival group on the other hand is often seen as "right" because it defends your own group. Also, because the member of the rival group is a stranger, his killing carries little emotional weight.Just turn on the news and you can see this dynamic playing out in the Middle East as we speak.

The term "murder" implies a wrongful killing. But killing itself is not always seen as innately "wrong".Please read my post up the page at 288.