re question for those with popular morality hudson these people hurt their own bodies why can t they hurt other peoples bodies too me because other people might not want to be hurt hudson and hurting them against their will is a violation of choice hudson so why is someone elses will such a big deal if morality is all relative i don t believe i ever said that morality was all relative what i said was that i can make my mind up on my own thank you and that you don t have the right to tell others what to think i think that you will find that in most moral systems there is a respect for human life and the dignity of the person it is all the stuff besides these points that forms the core of the disagreement between primitive moral absolutists like yourself and the rest of us hudson maybe the insane lover of pain might reason if other people experienced enough pain they might learn to enjoy it too fine there is still the clinical definition of crazy and this also involves a violation of free will because the insane lover of your little example would be inflicting pain on a non willing subject try again hudson you have to have other premises to derive this me no you don t that is a patently false statement hudson you have to have some sort of premise about choice or self awareness no you do not i demonstrated to you the example of the football team which doesn t require premises about freedom of choice or sentience self awareness as i said you are wrong and you don t seem to know much about moral systems if i were you i would take david bold s suggestion and do some reading on the subject before you try preaching about it
