"Is your argument that those priests and cannibals did not intend to kill their victims? I find that less than credible, to put it mildly."
No it is not even in the ball park of what I am arguing.
I am arguing that absolute moral principles exist, period. I have offered the following structure of how we may reference absolute morals. An ideal, ability to reference the ideal, circumstances in life, judgment about how a particular ideal is relevant to a particular circumstance, opinion about how best to apply a particular ideal in light of a particular circumstance, consequences of actions.
What you have offered is examples of attitudes and actions that may be based on someones judgment, opinion, or application of an ideal. You are confusing that with the meaning of the ideal itself.
"These people are quite sure of their moral absolutes also:"
There are no absolute moral principles that can be held by some but not others. There are judgments, opinions, circumstances, attitudes, actions, and consequences that may be held up quite uniquely in the light of an absolute moral principle.
If you and others keep holding up situations or particular people's applications as examples of absolute morals, it is evidence only that you have not understood my argument. |
