God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't clear to me if moral absolutism is being used here as if it is synonymous with moral objectivism? If it is then that would be incorrect

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It isn't clear to me if moral absolutism is being used here as if it is synonymous with moral objectivism? If it is then that would be incorrect

So far as I can tell, that is what Vlad is doing yes. If though he actually means something like, "I can't imagine why I might change my mind on moral position X" then I have no argument with him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So were the 9/11 hijackers – and for the same reason: faith. That's what makes faith-based morality so dangerous - there's no arguing someone out of it.

You’re heading here into Alien’s old mistake (remember him?). He came up with ever more convoluted examples of a morally bad act, ending up with torturing a child to death just for fun or some such. I agreed “absolutely” that that would be morally wrong in the sense that I could not imagine a mitigating argument that would change my mind about that. Where he (and you) went wrong though was to think that that then meant there was some kind of universal law to that effect, a bit like there is for gravity.

For all I know a psychopath would think TACTDJFF would be morally fine, and that would be his opinion on the matter. The difference though is that, while the psychopath and I can have different opinions on a moral questions, we cannot have different gravities.

You seem to be wanting a moral spectrum, to be at the right end of it above others and not want it at the same time.
That is intellectually confused.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You seem to be wanting a moral spectrum, to be at the right end of it above others and not want it at the same time.
That is intellectually confused.

The only confusion here is your (ab)use of language. What are you trying to say?