From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Sun
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1r66su$dm7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <sandvik-210493213823@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved
>#in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity
>#has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I 
>#don't need to state the dreadful r-word.

>So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what?

If you were able to prove that morality is objective, then it would
be correct to do so. The problem is, by the very meaning of the
words in question, to do so is oxymoronic. Of course you could
redefine the words, but that would still not lend support to the
underlying concept.

>After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.

This does not parse. How could you hardly be wrong without dragging
in the o-word?

>For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just
>your opinion.  Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism
>is merely a matter of taste?  (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm,
>I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of
>objectivity in any flavour.  Right?)

I have no problem with objectivity at all. It is my objectivity that
has led me to conclude that morality is subjective.

>-- 
>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

eric
