Settle down, dear. You 'read' like an angry Jimmy Swaggert. There's no reason to begin assaulting others with your gods and your Bibles.I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.
And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative
We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.
And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.
You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.
The standard never changes!
Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.
The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.
We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.
Special treatment:
And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.
Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:
I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone
The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!
Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.
There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.
And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.
In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.
The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.
And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.
More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.
In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.
#Winning
I don't believe any gods exist.
and here we will always be at an impasse.
You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.
So at this point we are wasting each other's time.
Horse pucky. You know God exists, just like you know that you necessarily and inescapably presuppose an absolute standard of logic and morality every time you open your mouth to assert anything at all.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .