Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark Chance" data-source="post: 1314466" data-attributes="member: 2795">Regarding Aztecs:Then you've ignored a good hunk of the historical situation that made so many human sacrifices possible.(emphasis added)*snip!*The conflation occurs because you apparently equate what you believe to be true with what actually is true. Positions that do not conform with your belief are excluded a priori as possible (or so it can easily appear).By the same token, consider arguments that state: Culture A believed Y; and culture B believe not-Y; therefore, there are no objectively true moral judgments. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because it does not consider the possibility that in fact either culture A is right and culture B is wrong, or vice versa, or that neither culture is right. In any event, since is quite likely absurd to say Y and not-Y are both true, the fundamental flaw in the argument should be obvious.Assume for a moment that the following statement is true: There are no universal, objective moral principles.Is that statement itself a universal, moral principle? If so, it is a self-contradiction; it is meaningless. If it is not a universal, moral principle, then it is false because it cannot said to completely govern the realm of moral principles.Still, assume that, despite the self-contradiction, the statement is still true. Then there is no morality at all. If all moral principles are equally true, then all are equally false. Both reductio ad absurdum and simple common sense show the ridiculousness of such a position.The threat of violence prompted by a particular form of expression is not a good way to judge the truth of that expression.</blockquote>

Verification