From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <16BB7B468.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
#In article <1r0fpv$p11@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
# 
#(Deletion)
#>#      Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually
#>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The
#>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question,
#>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it
#>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question,
#>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species.
#>
#>And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a
#>football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two?
#>Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it
#>so clearly.
#>
#(rest deleted)
# 
#That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out.

It's not a fallacy - note the IF.   IF a supermajority of disinterested people 
agree on a fundamantal value (we're not doing ethics YET Benedikt), then what 
is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial
observation?

#For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike
#a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are
#many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy
#does not hold.

I have, however, given an example of a VALUE people agree on, and explained
why.  People will agree that their freedom is valuable.  I have also
stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective
ethics - the IF assertion above.  And that is what I'm talking about, there
isn't a point in talking about ethics if this can't be agreed.

#One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football,
#while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees
#with a set of morals YOU have to give.

I'm not doing morals (ethics) if we can't get past values.  As I say,
the only cogent objection to my 'freedom' example is that maybe people
aren't talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable.
Maybe not, and I want to think about this some, especially the implications
of its being true.

#Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing
#your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.

Garbage.  That's not proof either.

#The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer
#the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher.

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