Pro-Life Women Shift to Majority?
- Thread starter covermye
- Start date
Bah, I must admit that was a weak moment for me when I yielded to relativism (granted shabbily I admit, although I take offence to being called an idiot) in an attempt to show that if morals are relative then there are no grounds for any in reality.(eg. Human rights, equality, compassion etc.) Further if I were to approach the argument in the way MFA did with his own set of morals entirely convinced that I was correct and for no reason it most certainly leads to a deadlock in any contest. There would not even be room for a concession. Horvendile made the best assessment over all in that we can create grounds for morality his case in point was the greatest happiness. Which is a favorable objective. I did not make allusion to it because I was caught with my pro objective truth argument being fixed in with absolute truth that MFA advanced. I did find that Horevendile was more willing to test and look for causality and has a more precautious stance though, I found that admirable. Argh, I know that absolutes are difficult to argue in morality simply because their always seems to be an exception to the rule but my argument is that simply because there is an exception to the rule it does not necessitate abandoning that imperative. I believe though, that there may very well be objective truth in morality. I leave open the possibility of absolutes and even look for them. When it gets right down to the possibility that God (meaning the thing that everything comes from.) created the universe with intent or no purpose is possibly not a matter ether, even a fart would have potential characteristics that would effect the outcome. 
If you do not think that I did not know I was going to have a difficult debate with MFA about relativism you are so wrong. I did find a few chinks so to speak though and MFA did have some issues with relativism himself.
While I know it is extremely hard to disprove moral relativism unlike other relativisms, I still contend that even though many who say they are certainly moral relativist hold convictions about the way things should be and government laws etc. Technically this does run contrary to the cannons of moral relativism. This is because they would like to replace one set of laws based on certain moral convictions for another set of regulation with different moral convictions. Therefor it is not that there is no right or wrong rather a different set of right and wrong.
Oh but I really do not like relativism. It leads people to feel like this…
What an aimless darkness we would all live in if we all did believe this. There is no hope in this statement no anything worth grabbing a hold of. While I understand there might very well be no truth in morality I really do not like the notion. What motivation does one have to achieve anything when they truly believe that they can do no good or make no difference? (I am not asking this is more of a statement.) I have struggled with moral relativism for years now and still find it objectionable. In such statements as above there is no balance at all, nothing to offset the uselessness of life, no hope. Maybe I fight the notion because I want there to be a reason for my existence. Oh I have thought maybe even that in some strange way everything needs something to perceive it to offset the impossibility of nothingness. But even with that we are mere instruments of the universes struggle against nothingness. All sorts of different possibilities of why we are. But science is a hopeful prospect, I do like what the prospects of physics may bring to the table. May it bring only more hopelessness? I do not know. What I do know is that we ought not to give up the hope that is missing out of the above statement for a reason to being.
Over all I still think that there is good grounds for being skeptical of someone actually believing in moral relativism. MFA, Horvendile or anyone else whom I may have offended, please except my apologies. I still assert though that abortion is wrong and we should not do it at all if avoidable. Certainly that would mean different standards with regards to promiscuity and so on. I definitely have problems with the pro abortion movement labeling themselves pro choice. I absolutely have problems with the current claim in laws that a child is not human until it leaves the mothers uterus.
If you do not think that I did not know I was going to have a difficult debate with MFA about relativism you are so wrong. I did find a few chinks so to speak though and MFA did have some issues with relativism himself.
While I know it is extremely hard to disprove moral relativism unlike other relativisms, I still contend that even though many who say they are certainly moral relativist hold convictions about the way things should be and government laws etc. Technically this does run contrary to the cannons of moral relativism. This is because they would like to replace one set of laws based on certain moral convictions for another set of regulation with different moral convictions. Therefor it is not that there is no right or wrong rather a different set of right and wrong.
Oh but I really do not like relativism. It leads people to feel like this…
What an aimless darkness we would all live in if we all did believe this. There is no hope in this statement no anything worth grabbing a hold of. While I understand there might very well be no truth in morality I really do not like the notion. What motivation does one have to achieve anything when they truly believe that they can do no good or make no difference? (I am not asking this is more of a statement.) I have struggled with moral relativism for years now and still find it objectionable. In such statements as above there is no balance at all, nothing to offset the uselessness of life, no hope. Maybe I fight the notion because I want there to be a reason for my existence. Oh I have thought maybe even that in some strange way everything needs something to perceive it to offset the impossibility of nothingness. But even with that we are mere instruments of the universes struggle against nothingness. All sorts of different possibilities of why we are. But science is a hopeful prospect, I do like what the prospects of physics may bring to the table. May it bring only more hopelessness? I do not know. What I do know is that we ought not to give up the hope that is missing out of the above statement for a reason to being.
Over all I still think that there is good grounds for being skeptical of someone actually believing in moral relativism. MFA, Horvendile or anyone else whom I may have offended, please except my apologies. I still assert though that abortion is wrong and we should not do it at all if avoidable. Certainly that would mean different standards with regards to promiscuity and so on. I definitely have problems with the pro abortion movement labeling themselves pro choice. I absolutely have problems with the current claim in laws that a child is not human until it leaves the mothers uterus.