re question for those with popular morality hudson and from a materialistic point of view it could be said that the nervous system is just matter what is wrong with producing chemical reactions in matter because this matter is different it is alive and self aware and it feels pain hudson if all morality were relative big hairy deal as i said you appear to be the only person saying that all morality is relative most people i know do hold some absolutes in their moral system i personally believe that the dignity of the individual and the right of free will are absolutes i recognize that there are some moral systems around which don t accept this i reject them as dangerous and anti social nazism some forms of communism fundamentalist xtianity no that s not a slam but for the most part almost every moral system agrees on these two points me and the sky and everything in it everything that was created came out of god everything including this matter is part of god therefore is it wrong to put parts of god in a test tube and make it go through reactions isn t that a form of blasphemy hudson generally christians believe in a creator creation distinction other religions believe in one big whole i don t accept yor premises too bad i know i m right so i get to enforce my view upon you whether you like my premise or not and since you can t prove otherwise there isn t even an intellectual basis for your resistance to accepting my viewpoint hudson how long will it be before the as long as it doesn t hurt someone else becomes more and more relative until the only rule that is left is i will do what i want to do no matter who it hurts there s a big jump between those two positions and you know it very well don t play stupid i realize that you re trying to dispute what you call popular morality by using what you think is logic but you re stretching this a bit too thin hudson i don t think so once morality becomes relative it degenerates i am saying that reasoning that it is generally evil to hurt other people is bad though i don t think it is sufficient well then answer me this you seem to be opposed to moral relativism as you call it because it has the capacity to degenerate obviously then you would advocate a nonrelative absolute moral system whose absolutist moral system do we choose how do we come to this decision what about people who disagree with the chosen moral system hudson but if morality is considered to be relative and this rule isn t based on anything but is just an arbitrary rule people might abandon it fine i can agree with most of what you typed here however just because morality gets based on something nonrelative does not mean that we have to pick your xtianity as its base we can start a morality based on dignity of humans freedom of choice tolerance etc and never ever rely on xtianity for anything just because someone has a consistent moral system based on true principles does not mean that they have to involve xtianity in it xtianity certainly does not have a monopoly on principles of behavior indeed fewer religions are guiltier of violating their own principles
