A personal morality

I doubt it. You clearly know it to be true and still, you are not out there raping and killing. Instead, you are here enjoying yourself talking about it with us over the internet. I don`t think you would. the reason you wouldn`t want to become a imoral person is because that`s not who you are. Your morality comes from within you and a simple change in your understanding about how the world operates wouldn`t make a dent. denying your own nature would be unbearable.

Someone might argue that it`s not a question of right and wrong. It really is a question of true and untrue. If there happens to be to real god (a logical possibility) then there is no absolute morality. It would be (is) up to us as human beings do find for ourselves what we consider to be right or wrong (not a simple matter, but hey! who said it had to be simple?) Not wrong. just incorrect. That`s a huge difference. wrong implies a moral reason for us to drop the absolute morality, as oposed to as simply not being a good mirror for reality. You seem to have this absolute way to look at things rooted so deeply in your being that you find it hard not to think in terms of rights and wrongs. What`s that`s got to do with anything? really? May be in your mind. But out here in the real world your pseudoparadox doesn`t seem to hold water.

I agree. But even if it were not a non sequitur, it would still be appealing to consequences.
Rob seems to think that if something leads to internal chaos (inside his mind), then it cannot possibly be true.

I said it once, and I`ll say it again. what`s that got to do with anything???I didn`t say those things are mistakes. I said it is a mistake to think that they are wrong because of some absolute morality. Correct would be to say that those things are wrong because we as human beings (with our relative morality) find those things abhorent (probabily misspeled). Don`t you wish it would be so easy?!! I`m not trying to justify anything. I`m just concerned with truth, and whether there really is an absolute morality handed down from god to man. I`m convinced that there isn`t, and I`m fine with that. I`m not any less moral for it if you want to know.Edited by fallacycop, : typo

The only chaotic thing aroud here, as far as I can see, is the way you think about things. You`ve been making fallacious arguments against relative morality. All I`ve done was to point them out.

I don`t think I ever said that. What I said was that the only chaos around here is inside your mind. meaning it is a figment of your imagination.

I don`t think people com up with moral systems because they want to do away with someoneelse`s moral system. We all do it because we are moral beings. It is in our nature. We just can`t help it. That does not make those morals absolute, though. they are relative because they were created by men, not gods. they are just the best we could com up with, as human beings. . salvation seems to be such a selfish reason for anybody to try to be moral. It`s so blatantly contradictory that I don`t see how it could possibily work.

Some people do good things because they feel good when they do it. But you seem to believe that people will only do the right thing if they are handed the (absolute) rules by some higher being (god). If that`s true, I have to say I do not envy you. you really must have a joyless life if you keep doing the right thing and still don`t get any pleasure out of it.

Now you`ve opened an entirely new can of warms. Why would those things be considered immoral? but I suppose this question might be off topic here.But consider that:
I may have had one or two one night stands in my entire life. If I said I didn`t enjoy them, I would be lying. So why haven`t I had any more? simply put, I enjoy long term relationships even more. But other people may have different inclinations. I don`t feel the need to label their behaviour as immoral, though. If a couple decides to have a one-time-fling, how does that hurt me or anybody else? How could I honestly lable their behaviour as immoral?

That`s not ut to you to decide. Every person has to decide by themselves what gives them self worth. Just your opinion. I, for instance, am very proud of being an animal. I couldn`t care less about Mill`s (who the heck is him?) opinion.Besides being an instance of "appeal to authority" fallacy, what you said makes no sense. There are many forms of love. Besides, love is stronger then you are implying. Who are you to decide what`s hurtfull to other people? That`s their prehogative, not yours. Not necessarily. A completely irrelevant conclusion to your post. (which, by the way, is not entirely surprising...)

Sorry, but I just don`t buy that. Your arguments in these fora must stand on their own. Besides, as I pointed out, what you said made no sense. No external "Authorities" will change that. (May be you just misstyped?)Is that all you could come up with against my previous post? Unecessary prsonal attacks. Your debating style isn`t doing much to further your points, in case you haven`t noticed...

I do more then simply memorizing fallacies. I think critically about them.I think if is quite funny that you brought in a second appeal to authority in order to justify the first.But that was really the least important point I made in my post because a statement can still be true even if all that was given to support it was an empty appeal to authority.Why don`t you address some of my other more relevant points?

I don`t see how the second frase above follows from the first. Would you care to explain?

Not even that, because may be god cares more about whether you keep your intellectual integrity then whether you go against him or not.You cannot hurt god by going against him/her/it/them. He`s god. We are mere mortals.But you can hurt yourself by going against your own beliefs.A loving god would know that, and wish you to be yourself, even if that meant you becoming an atheist.