re after years can we say that christian morality is in article bb b i dbstu rz tu bs de i dbstu rz tu bs de benedikt rosenau writes in article r fpv p horus ap mchp sni de frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes deletion point morals are in essence personal opinions usually ideally well founded motivated such but nonetheless personal the fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question sometimes even for the same reason does not make morals objective it makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question which can be good for the evolution of a social species and if a real large lot nice phrase of people agree that there is a football on a desk i m supposed to see a logical difference between the two perhaps you can explain the difference to me since you seem to see it so clearly rest deleted that s a fallacy and it is not the first time it is pointed out it s not a fallacy note the if if a supermajority of disinterested people agree on a fundamantal value we re not doing ethics yet benedikt then what is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial observation for one you have never given a set of morals people agree upon unlike a football further you conveniently ignore here that there are many who would not agree on tghe morality of something the analogy does not hold i have however given an example of a value people agree on and explained why people will agree that their freedom is valuable i have also stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective ethics the if assertion above and that is what i m talking about there isn t a point in talking about ethics if this can t be agreed one can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football while you have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees with a set of morals you have to give i m not doing morals ethics if we can t get past values as i say the only cogent objection to my freedom example is that maybe people aren t talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable maybe not and i want to think about this some especially the implications of its being true further the above is evidence not proof proof would evolve out of testing your theory of absolute morals against competing theories garbage that s not proof either the above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer the objections evidence that you are a preacher name that fallacy frank o dwyer i m not hatching that odwyer sse ie from hens by evelyn conlon
