You may be standing for all I know. True, the Holocaust is not objectively evil. Only to those who believe it. If it was objectively evil, there'd be no discussion on whether anyone believes it, it would be objective fact. I gave you the definition of objective. Your choice on whether you agree or not. I guess that makes the word definition of objective, subjective. Wow, what in this world isn't subjective??
Not yet...it's a work-in-progress. More knowledge will be forthcoming with time. Your bigoted prejudicial beliefs are duly noted.
You mean like this? Deuteronomy 15:17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant. Oh, an awl, that's real humane. A truly benevolent god would not tolerate such actions. Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by the appointment of Jesus, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by Jesus. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of Jesus, and those who resist will incur judgment. Jesus teaches people to be good slaves and to accept whatever bad authority he institutes over people, you know, like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hoxha, and other slime Jesus appointed as authorities..
The beauty of Objective Morality is that it doesn't matter if you use the teleological or deontological approaches. As neuro-scientist Sam Harris notes, you can have an objective basis for morality by looking towards science and determining what increases well-being for all people to the greatest degree.
When you have to take something out of context, its makes a fool of you and your argument. Here is the entire section including the critical part you "neglected" to post: 16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant. Its totally voluntary. The servant gets a pierced ear with an ear ring in it to signify the house he is now a member of. You have seen people with pierced ears and ear rings, right? Wrong, once again. Does the idea that a Christian obey every authority no matter how bad that authority even make sense? Only if you abandon the entire Bible except for that one verse. That's absurd so obviously you have the wrong understanding. The chapter and verse numbers are arbitrary. Chapter 13 is a continuation of Paul's argument which starts in Chapter 12 verse 18. Paul writes "If it is possible, live at peace with everyone." Romans 13:1 should be understood as "if it is possible, let every person be subject to the governing authorities." And the specific authorities are the 3 established by God - the Priest, the Prophet, and the King. Not Hitler, Stalin, etc. It helps if you read and understand the Bible.
I think the topic of objective morality is dead. I proved it doesn't exist. Objective itself may not exist.
Sentient - responsive to or conscious of sense impressions (Mirriam-Webster). So an earthworm and a cockroach are sentient since they are responsive to sense impressions, yet I not seeing you trying to ban Raid.
Why would Sam Harris' subjective opinion lead to more objectivity than the subjective opinion of the Pope or of Jim Jones? Would you care to show us where science has shown what "increases well-being for all people to the greatest degree"? Where, for example, has science weighed in the "objective morality" of abortion?
The fact that earthworms and cockroaches reflexively instinctively respond to stimuli does not equate to "cogito ergo sum."
Many sentient animals eat other sentient animals. It's not my fault Humans are at the top of the Food Chain.
Well since there are viruses and bacteria that eat humans I guess you would say they are at the top of the food chain. And this is your rather silly statement that my post was in response to. " A sentient being is a sentient being, whether in-utero or not. To end the life of a sentient being without due process for purposes of personal gain is murder, plain and simple." Care to modify your statement?
I wasn't trying to infer that you did say that. I merely chose a random age. I could have said 8 weeks or 12 weeks and the logic stays the same.
According to this New York Times article, brain activity can be measured at Week 6: Even though the fetus is now developing areas that will become specific sections of the brain, not until the end of week 5 and into week 6 (usually around forty to forty-three days) does the first electrical brain activity begin to occur. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html I still hold to 12-14 weeks when the medulla oblongata is fully formed.
Hold whatever you want. Most people would prefer evidence which you appear unable to supply unless of course you are willing to equate electrical activity with actual evidence of thought.
You're getting your terms mixed up. You are correct a fetus is not a child but if it's in a human it is human. It's as human as her tonsils. It is NOT A human as in a "person". Oh, I know what Anti-Choicers believe...and that's fine as long as they don't try to legislate their opinions....but they do. Which is why they will get a battle.
You are totally confused. The Supreme Court says the absence of brain-waves outside the brain stem is death, so conversely, the presence of brain-waves outside the brain stem is life. Sentience doesn't take place until several weeks later.
Oh, yes, "context." The cry of the christians whenever something is horrendous, brutal, savage merciless, immoral, murderous, petty, heartless, unjust, sickening, appalling, barbaric, cruel, unfair, ridiculous or disgusting. 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. Truly benevolent beings would be appalled at the injustice there.
