Quote from: abitpeckish on May 18, 2013, 08:06 pmQuote from: jundullahi on May 18, 2013, 07:17 pm[...] Different ideologies have different morals and values. And in the end to point on with you send depends on the place where you sit.This reveals an unreasonable core belief: that morality is relative, which means it's subjective, and therefore all morals are equivalent. This is generally referred to as "normative moral relativism". A reasonable argument can be made, however, for the objective nature of morality, as it is based upon an innate human (at least human) value of *truth* over untruth. Some moral questions can be understood in a context of "relative to alternatives x/y/z", but it does not follow that all answers are equally valid. I went into a little more detail on this idea in the following post:http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=160732.msg1141486#msg1141486I'm amazed that you and I disagree on something, but it seems we do. Perhaps it's arrogance, perhaps not, but I consider you a man of extreme intelligence who seems to have come to conclusions that are almost identical to my own -- and to me this is one of the most basic conclusions one can come to, hence my surprise. Morality is very much a malleable, subjective, "made up" thing. Yes, I do mean all morality, and no, I am not psychotic or a sociopath; I just don't consider it "wrong" to do a thing that makes me feel bad. Hurting people still makes me feel bad, but I do not think it's intrinsically "wrong," nor do I think it's some kind of objective quality that's attached to an action. I don't do it and I don't want to do it, but frankly that's just because it would make me feel bad. How is that not by its very nature subjective?Hitler was moral by his own standards, and I don't see anything anywhere that objectively proves my morals are better than his. Mine just say let everyone choose their own life, insofar as it doesn't inhibit another's right to choose the same. His told him differently. But his were just as "good" as mine -- in outcome obviously they're radically different, but putting that aside I mean: what exactly makes his somehow less true or good than my own other than human biology (which again seems to me by its very nature to be subjective)?