Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: Is morality objective?

  1. #16
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Goodo; I look forward to it.

    It's a fascinating subject, not made simpler by there being no universal morals.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  2. #17
    Unregistered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Remiss, at times.
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    I don't jump to conclusions; ever.

    What I do is post my thoughts on subjects which have been honed by half a century's contemplation of the evidence.

    I do indeed believe every word I say, so I'll be interested in where you're going to cure my ignorance.



    I'm not too fussed what it's called, but I'm pretty close to 100% certain that all morals are human constructs, which makes morality relative, so I look forward to being educated, which I must need.



    This is so full of assumptions and errors that I don't know where to start.

    "Evolution has designed us"?

    I'm not sure where you're getting your assumptions, but that's a leap of faith way too far for me. Evolution didn't "design" anything - it just happened.

    I wouldn't say "I believe in evolution" either. I'm happy to admit that I accept the fact of evolution as shown by empirical evidence, but I don't have any beliefs about it.



    Sorry, but this reads as though it were written by a proponent of what I call "IDiocy", but refers to itself by the deceitful name of "intelligent design".

    The mistake you're making is that you are adding a human construct to an evolutionary imperative - we don't "value" any of those things you mention any more than we "value" breathing; they are simply reflective of how humans live, as a result of ~2M years of evolution.

    Take your companionship as an example. Humans are useless on their own in the wild - we're slow, weak, have no built-in weapons, are too big to climb far enough to be useful and are nice & meaty with crunchy bones. Two humans are better off than one, and ten of them, while still easy food for a lion, would at least make a lion think twice.

    I'm just not comfortable with assigning "value" to things which are simply biological imperatives we could no more avoid than those which make us blink, scratch our ear or swallow.

    (bolding mine)

    In your post, you describe my thoughts on the subject as "uneducated", "ignorant" (bit tautological, I'd have thought) and "hypocritical".

    Then you post that.

    From where I sit, the massive weight of evidence of evolution shows no sense of design whatsoever, so I'll leave you to those premises and stick with my ignorance, thanks.



    I gotta admit; that's funny.

    Above, you deigned to use semantics, yet all you've done is use "value" as a synonym for "morality". You haven't married them; you've made them interchangeable, and on very sloppy premises. Cunning plan, but no go.



    Is that supposed to be some kind of evidence?

    Some vegan said something of value to him and his own constructed morality and you're using it to prove a point that morality is not relative?

    Oops.



    You're reading it wrong as well.

    "When considered in all its accessories and consequences" is clearly Shelley talking to intent.



    Well, as explained above, I don't accept that we're "designed" in any way at all, so I'd like you to show how that design works before we get to your errors in human morality itself.

    I will note those errors for you so you can prepare properly for the response:

    Killing is bad. Do I really need to point out the obvious here? Ok, I will. Remember that our evolutionary imperative is survival of our genetic code. If someone is threatening you and those who carry your genes and the only choice is to kill the instigator, then that killing cannot be "bad". (I won't bother getting into the relativity of what constitutes "good" and "bad" in terms of killing; it's just more construct anyway.)

    Working together is good....teamwork aids in our survival far more than fighting does

    Half right and half wrong. You have heard of wars? Teamwork helps in them too and all of human history has contained warfare and genocide. Fighting is as much an evolutionary imperative as teamwork. On the teamwork angle, even ants work together, so it's no big deal. Whether or not it's "good" is highly debatable; it just is.

    Humans could just have easily evolved into solitary hunter/gatherers. That we didn't confers no value on the trait we ended up with. Unless you want to argue that sheep are superior to other animals because of their companionship, non-violence and vegetarianism.

    I do like the way you resorted to semantics again by changing "objective" to "collective subjective". Coberst had a thread on that very subject a while back.

    Once again, you are so expeditious to judge. By the perceived tone of your protests and the vast quantity of them, I am inclined to think that I hit some fragile chord in your soul that made your ego shudder. I am not going to dissertate to you every proof, as I think 50 years of vanity has honed a lot of bigotry on your part that has closed your mind and prevented you from seeing any value in my points—you must be a very sequestered and miserable person—and will unquestionably prevent you from seeing any of my future points, thus you are virtually beneath my consideration. I write this so that our silent readers may gain some knowledge You may respond to this post, as I am almost 100% sure you will; however I will not reciprocate and respond once again in return. Your objections will fall upon my deaf ears and you will doubtless come off as a perverse harlequin to the silent readers.

    I have not denied that morals are a human construct. Though this does not imply that they are 100% relative. Morality being a human construct is not a sufficient condition for the relativity of morals; I have sufficiently explained this in my initial post and will not do it again.

    Evolution hardly “just happened.” It was not random. As atoms interacted with each other they formed systems. Naturally systems designed with integrity lasted longer than those without. Human life happened to possess the special trait of evolution which, through procreation, could modify its design.

    I am using value in perhaps a more abstract sense than you can detect. We value anything that ultimately serves to fulfill our purpose in life (survival, procreation, happiness, etc.) So, yes, we do value breathing. If someone is choking you you’re going to value air and consequently you’re going to want them to stop.

    The point you condemn here was to show that even for one who didn’t believe in or accept evolution it could be observed that there are non-relative values.

    You will see in my second post I clarified that this was not so, and I thought the distinction was relatively implicit so I omitted it; I’m not here to write you a 10,000 word dissertation on morality.

    As for the next point I thought it was an interesting tangent for the reader; it is fairly obvious that it is not very pertinent to the argument, and I had considered deleting it; but, once again, the world does not revolve around you.

    Oh, yes, you’re right about that. I had read the essay a while ago and I suppose I had not picked up on that. All I recalled was thinking that he was a consequentialist; in haste I posted this quote, but you’re right.

    The reason we didn’t evolve into solitary hunter-gathers due to one simple principle: survival of the fittest.

    In that post the question was posed purely as rhetorical to try and demonstrate that there was a distinction between the collective subjective and the objective, yet, in all your infinite wisdom, you were blind to that fact and dissented without much consideration. Another demonstration of your judgmental nature.
    Last edited by Cunninglinguist; 05-29-2010 at 06:30 PM.

  3. #18
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    You're committing the Naturalistic Fallacy CL, there is no reason to extract moral judgment from the way things exist in nature. You're also using the term "design" rather loosely. A snowflake is hardly designed by the laws of chemistry, despite it taking on an ordered structure. Design implies intention, evolution has no broad scoped intention behind. I even object to Atheist's anthropomorphic descriptions of humans having a purpose of improving the survival of their genes. The only reason all life acts in ways that promote their self-propagation is because any life that didn't would not exist.

    It also doesn't strengthen your argument very much to begin with a slew of ad hominem.
    "If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
    - Margaret Atwood

  4. #19
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    I even object to Atheist's anthropomorphic descriptions of humans having a purpose of improving the survival of their genes.
    I didn't say anything about improvment of genes, I said that keeping them alive was a biological imperative. Every animal has a survival instinct, that's all I'm saying, and which you note right here:.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    The only reason all life acts in ways that promote their self-propagation is because any life that didn't would not exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    It also doesn't strengthen your argument very much to begin with a slew of ad hominem.
    I'm about to deal with those right now!



    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    Once again, you are so expeditious to judge.
    Where have I been at all judgemental?

    I'm beginning to think you're making things up, because I have not made any judgemental statement at all - at least, not in the way I'd use the word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    By the perceived tone of your protests and the vast quantity of them, I am inclined to think that I hit some fragile chord in your soul that made your ego shudder.
    You what?

    I'm perfectly comfortable with having opinions challenged, but I have no idea where that came from. Why on earth would ny ego shudder at anything you've typed so far? I'm sticking, as far as possible to a simple factual analysis, but to date, you've shown a complete lack of facts, so your intended criticism is pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    I am not going to dissertate to you every proof, as I think 50 years of vanity has honed a lot of bigotry on your part that has closed your mind and prevented you from seeing any value in my points—you must be a very sequestered and miserable person—and will unquestionably prevent you from seeing any of my future points, thus you are virtually beneath my consideration.
    See what I mean about facts and you making things up?

    50 years of vanity.... closed your mind..... sequestered and miserable person... you are virtually beneath my consideration...

    I usually find ad hominem a substitute for argument, but I'll keep looking for your argument anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    I write this so that our silent readers may gain some knowledge
    They will gain knowledge of how you approach rational argument but little else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    You may respond to this post, as I am almost 100% sure you will; however I will not reciprocate and respond once again in return.
    Fine by me, but I do love the way you're trying to manoeuvre yourself into some kind of high moral [sic] ground here, by insinuating that my reply to a blatant ad hominem attack is bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    Your objections will fall upon my deaf ears and you will doubtless come off as a perverse harlequin to the silent readers.
    That could well be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    I have not denied that morals are a human construct. Though this does not imply that they are 100% relative. Morality being a human construct is not a sufficient condition for the relativity of morals; I have sufficiently explained this in my initial post and will not do it again.
    This is a plain contradiction - you have clearly just messed up here and are not prepared to admit it. What part of "human construct" can be anything other than relative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    Evolution hardly “just happened.” It was not random. As atoms interacted with each other they formed systems. Naturally systems designed with integrity lasted longer than those without. Human life happened to possess the special trait of evolution which, through procreation, could modify its design.
    To work through your points in order:

    Wrong - evolution did "just happen".

    It is certainly random, and this can be proven very simply by events like meteors, climate change and viruses. While you could use determinism to claim that nothing's "random", I like to stick to the dice and not know whether a 1 or 6 will roll. Our evolution as a species is due to so many random events, the calculation would be almost infinite.

    Had dinsoaurs not died out, we would be most unlikely to be here.

    That's just one of trillions of random events which has enabled us to talk to each other by electronic means.

    Wrong. None of the systems are "designed" in any way. They turned out the way they turned out - some were successful, some were not.

    Wrong. Human life possesses no special traits, and I find it incredibly arrogant to say so. As a species, we've dominated the planet for a mere eyeblink in evolutionary terms - 10,000 years or so. When we've survived for 50 or 60 million, I think we might be able to claim special status, but as of right now, we're not even a blip on evolution, although later species may wonder whether we caused the great extinction of the human epoch, or whether it was out of our control.

    Wrong. Procreation doesn't modify anything, it merely takes bits from two established genes. Modification requires mutation or viral interference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    I am using value in perhaps a more abstract sense than you can detect.
    Nah, you're just changing the meaning when it suits you - see under:

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    We value anything that ultimately serves to fulfill our purpose in life (survival, procreation, happiness, etc.) So, yes, we do value breathing. If someone is choking you you’re going to value air and consequently you’re going to want them to stop.
    You're playing with semantics. (Badly, as it happens)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    The point you condemn here was to show that even for one who didn’t believe in or accept evolution it could be observed that there are non-relative values.
    No, I haven't condemned that point at all. I really don't care what people who cannot accept evolution think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    You will see in my second post I clarified that this was not so, and I thought the distinction was relatively implicit so I omitted it; I’m not here to write you a 10,000 word dissertation on morality.
    The distinction's fine, but irrelevant. I'm pleased to hear about the 10,000 word dissertation, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    As for the next point I thought it was an interesting tangent for the reader; it is fairly obvious that it is not very pertinent to the argument, and I had considered deleting it; but, once again, the world does not revolve around you.
    Says who? If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot right now!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    Oh, yes, you’re right about that. I had read the essay a while ago and I suppose I had not picked up on that. All I recalled was thinking that he was a consequentialist; in haste I posted this quote, but you’re right.
    And that's it? You base your entire argument on the premise then admit it's wrong but carry on as though it was right?

    Wow!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    The reason we didn’t evolve into solitary hunter-gathers due to one simple principle: survival of the fittest.
    Again you display a lack of knowledge of evolution. Yes, that is what actually happened, but all that would have been required is for sole hunter-gatherers to have developed a more useful trait than society for us to have gone that way.

    If a random mutation had left some humans able to run at 70kph, we might well have lived the life that cheetahs do, running to catch small game and running away from predators. We might just as easily have developed a semi-aquatic nature and returned to the oceans.

    That we evolved one way does not mean we could not have evolved any other. Neanderthals are a classic example - they were social, well-developed, possibly smarter than our ancestors, yet died out.

    Maybe if you had a better understanding of evolution and lost the idea that "design" plays any part, you'd find it easier to understand my view.

    I don't expect you to agree with it, but understanding it should be quite simple.

    And still looking for your argument....
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  5. #20
    biting writer
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    when it is not pc, philly
    Posts
    2,184
    I believe that evil does exist in the abstract, even if it is exceedingly difficult to prove through a logical construct. An example I used in another thread is a mother who cooked her baby to death in a microwave while engaging in substance abuse. One can find the links to it online. But I do not know that morality is in and of itself an absolute value system, and the philosophical arguments surrounding moral value judgments are complex--and no, I do not think god(s) exist, we merely project them out of metaphysical need, which is itself still a relatively fresh consequence of our self-recognition and awareness.

  6. #21
    Pièce de Résistance Scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Tweet @ScherLitNet
    Posts
    23,903
    Quote Originally Posted by wokeem View Post
    Organized religion seems to attempt to put the concept of morality on an objective scale, removed from circumstances and intentions, and to show it as an area that is only black and white. However, different religions across the globe differ on their view as to what can be considered truly "moral." Many eastern faiths (as well as native american) are pantheistic, that is, they are of the belief that god lies within every living thing, and that killing a creature of any kind (without need) is wrong. Other faiths are based on ritualistic sacrifices. Islamic extremists view suicide bombings as the epitome of self-righteousness, while others who practice the Muslim faith view these acts as morally reprehensible.

    I think that morality is a somewhat cheap and shortsighted concept and is at best, culturally relative. I feel that a more rational and sensible distinction, and one more easily examined objectively, is whether or not certain actions are "pro-social."

    What are your thoughts and opinions on this? Do you believe that certain actions are inherently right or wrong? Is there an objective value instilled in every action?
    No.




    __________________
    ~
    "It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
    ~


  7. #22
    biting writer
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    when it is not pc, philly
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Scheherazade View Post
    No.




    __________________
    Well, I guess my favorite moderator settled that! (And yes Sche, of all the moderators who just didn't know what to do with me, you are my favorite, even though I've been good of late. (I think).

    wok: though I stand by my prior post, I am not sure actions can constitute moral objectivity, and agree with Sche, upon rereading her quote of your thread starter.
    Last edited by Jozanny; 05-29-2010 at 08:14 PM. Reason: wrong word

  8. #23
    Unregistered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Remiss, at times.
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    You're committing the Naturalistic Fallacy CL, there is no reason to extract moral judgment from the way things exist in nature. You're also using the term "design" rather loosely. A snowflake is hardly designed by the laws of chemistry, despite it taking on an ordered structure. Design implies intention, evolution has no broad scoped intention behind. I even object to Atheist's anthropomorphic descriptions of humans having a purpose of improving the survival of their genes. The only reason all life acts in ways that promote their self-propagation is because any life that didn't would not exist.

    It also doesn't strengthen your argument very much to begin with a slew of ad hominem.
    We have values that exist in nature, and from some of these values, namely the ones that are concering others, are moral values. I am not too keen on naturalistic fallacy, if I am committing it please further enlighten me as to why this is an error.
    The goal or "intention" of evolution is to create species that are pretty much immortal.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    Killing is bad. Do I really need to point out the obvious here? Ok, I will. Remember that our evolutionary imperative is survival of our genetic code. If someone is threatening you and those who carry your genes and the only choice is to kill the instigator, then that killing cannot be "bad". (I won't bother getting into the relativity of what constitutes "good" and "bad" in terms of killing; it's just more construct anyway.)
    Let us take this to be true, and let us also take for granted that killing each other goes against our values. Then we get the moral maxims "killing others when we don't have to is immoral" and "killing others when it is absolutely necessary is not immoral." And these are "objectively" true.

  9. #24
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    We have values that exist in nature, and from some of these values, namely the ones that are concering others, are moral values. I am not too keen on naturalistic fallacy, if I am committing it please further enlighten me as to why this is an error.
    The goal or "intention" of evolution is to create species that are pretty much immortal.
    Evolution has no goal, evolution is something that happens, point finis. you might as well state that the Sun's goal is to create light.

    If our "natural values" are a worthwhile objective guide to morality, then xenophobia and racism must be moral. Our distrust of other groups is something biologically motivated, should we hate others for being different? Is our natural tendency for hating what is different moral? Extrapolating a moral judgment simply from human nature is not an acceptable justification of any morality.
    "If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
    - Margaret Atwood

  10. #25
    Unregistered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Remiss, at times.
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    Evolution has no goal, evolution is something that happens, point finis. you might as well state that the Sun's goal is to create light.

    If our "natural values" are a worthwhile objective guide to morality, then xenophobia and racism must be moral. Our distrust of other groups is something biologically motivated, should we hate others for being different? Is our natural tendency for hating what is different moral? Extrapolating a moral judgment simply from human nature is not an acceptable justification of any morality.
    xenophobia and racism I would fain argue are learned habits, just as fighting is and the like. I've never met a bigotted baby. I presume we learn to hate when a lack of resources and an insatiable necessity cause two beings to be pitch against eacher for that reward. As for children, when they fight it can be observed, there is always an external reason. Suppose they fight over some toy, there is only at present ever 1 toy, not two which they could both easily play with independently and peacefully.

    Even if they are I never said it was not possible that we didn't possess quite destructive values that guide our behavior immorally.

    My basic argument is based on two premises; that is, morals come from values, and we all possess certain values that are not variable, therefore some morals are not relative. Take for example, we value not killing, as The Atheist has pointed out there are times when it is necessary to kill, so we get the moral maxims “killing when necessary is not immoral” and “unnecessary killing is immoral.” The moral status of killing then is conditional i.e. killing is immoral when x, killing is not immoral when y; and someone may perchance try to say that since the moral status is conditional it is thus relative. But this is not so, the moral status of killing for anyone is, under either of these circumstances, always dependent on these conditions; that is to say, no matter who you are, if killing is not necessary it is always immoral. Same thing goes for xenophobia and racism, though I can’t think of many scenarios where these two things are ever really necessary. The Atheist’s rudeness is immoral because it is quite unnecessary and destructive.

    as for evolution: While mutations are random, which kind of mutations generally survive is quite determined. The mutations that survive are those that serve to make a species more fit, and I see nothing farfetched about saying in this sense evolution has a general goal; however, the specific incidences of it happening are indeed quite random.
    Last edited by Cunninglinguist; 05-30-2010 at 08:46 AM.

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    553

    Essay

    I've just finished a first draft of my essay on the subject. I am paranoid when it comes to posting my texts online. Furthermore it is kinda long and I wouldn't want to scare away people from this thread by posting it here.

    Hence I offer that if anyone is interested, he/she can send me a PM with an email address and I will send the essay.

    I'll briefly summarize my point of view again though:

    Objective morality is possible, under certain important restrictions. Just like in mathematics, an axiom, a frame of reference for an ethical system must be chosen. A rational agent can then, along utilitarian lines, choose the best action for any given situation.

    Of course there are exceptions and additions to it, that's why I wrote a long essay.

  12. #27
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    The Atheist’s rudeness is immoral because it is quite unnecessary and destructive.
    I find this hilarious.

    I have not once been rude or used ad hominem, while even others have noted yours. I'm sure you mentioned hypocrisy somewhere....

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist View Post
    The mutations that survive are those that serve to make a species more fit, and I see nothing farfetched about saying in this sense evolution has a general goal; ....
    You'll just continue to be wrong, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodo25 View Post
    Hence I offer that if anyone is interested, he/she can send me a PM with an email address and I will send the essay.
    Post it as an attachment, then we can at least discuss it, which isn't all that practical if it's only available by PM.

    We'll be kind. (-ish)

    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    Post it as an attachment, then we can at least discuss it, which isn't all that practical if it's only available by PM.

    We'll be kind. (-ish)

    Haha that's not the reason, thanks for the reassurance though.

  14. #29
    Pièce de Résistance Scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Tweet @ScherLitNet
    Posts
    23,903
    R e m i n d e r

    Please do not personalise your arguments.

    Posts containing inflammatory remarks or OT posts will be removed without further notice.
    ~
    "It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
    ~


  15. #30
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodo25 View Post
    Haha that's not the reason, thanks for the reassurance though.
    Well, whatever you do, send me a link or copy by PM anyway so I don't miss it.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-06-2017, 08:30 PM
  2. Is Morality an Open and Closed Matter?
    By coberst in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-19-2009, 04:46 AM
  3. What is the Association of Efficiency with Morality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 09:00 AM
  4. Objective or Subjective Morality?
    By Gorilla King in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-23-2007, 06:27 PM
  5. Objective Moral Values
    By ShoutGrace in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 01-05-2007, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •