Its not that I can't see... its that I would like to see you go past your reverse hallmark card hate of Christianity and actually think and contribute substance. A previous content creator here... zzz / Jesus once wrote a very new age but very interesting post about apotheosis. So he would have the brain power to make your point in his sleep. having used his post as a jumping off point... I learned a bit about eastern orthodox Christianity and became even more informed about Communion. So, I could make your point for you. But, if you thought that deeply about the subject... I doubt you would be such a hater. so... I ask you to elaborate because I am just not sure if your well runs deep enough to go past the hate and your substandard psycho babble to make a point worth reading.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/Default2.aspx https://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayton/moral-dilemmas-that-will-break-your-brain http://listverse.com/2007/10/21/top-10-moral-dilemmas/ http://psychopixi.com/misc/25-moral-dilemmas/ http://www.strangenotions.com/tough-questions-about-objective-morality/
There’s a few issues iv'e got regarding moral relativity that’s being peddled these days and the way it distorts and clouds true right and wrong but to understand morality and moral relativism I think it helps to define them properly first.Morality is the distinction between right and wrong behavior, and the definition of moral relativism is the notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. Right behavior (morality) is defined as actions based in truth and not causing harm to others and wrong action being the opposite, so if right action is based in truth and is absolute by definition with the definition of relative being absence of standards of absolute and universal application, thus making making moral relativity subjective to ones personnel preferences, a dangerous road for us to go down don't you think....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_J_Curve:_A_New_Way_to_Understand_Why_Nations_Rise_and_Fall Short-term right (e.g. Anti-AGW) may cause long-term wrong! http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment
I would point out, you've not really defined morality until you've defined truth which you based it in.
I define truth as simply that which is, interested to hear how you define moral relativity that you subscribe to Stu?
That which is....... what exactly?... and for whom? You or me? With respect , such a flimsy and subjective test is not worthy of defining truth. Just to clarify, I don't dismiss absolute morality when its definition is being strictly constrained within a clear and relevent context. Otherwise I would say it's idealism wrapped in wishful thinking.
Just 2 cents: 1. Truth is also relative, depending on circumstance/environment/situation/timing, and it's temporal, dynamic and subjective. Truth is based on belief/faith. That's why I didn't list truth was important in my last post. Only when one believes in A, then B is true for the situation! However, not for ever. Finding any forever universal truth as many religious believers believe can be waste of time and energy, most often! 2. Truth is absolutely subjective, and merely based on selfish measures by human being standards! Fact is better than truth, but they are very different! Laws are made based on facts, not truths. So many bad laws outdated, to be updated in response to modern living! That's why the highest court needs to make decisions constantly. If static and objective, no high court is required. 3. A thing is true and good to human A can be bad to human B. A thing which is almost universally true and good to most humans can be bad and damaging to certain animal or plant or water or air or environment or the universe we live. Should good or truth be measured by spiritual terms, or monetary terms, or both, or else? ...
Guys , I know its a biggy to get your head around and this is difficult for you to hear but you are getting confused to what truth really is,over complicating and defining incorrectly a very simple concept.Truth is objective not subjective and is not 'dependant' on your perception or your opinion , truth is not good,bad right, wrong or changeable and doesn’t care about what you want,think or perceive to be true. Put another way truth is simply what has occurred in the past and what is occurring now in the present.