>Absolutely, this person is a hypocrite. I completely
>understand this notion. Remember it was I that iterated this
>in the first place.


My fault, I thought this is what we were at odds on, and might do a bit in explaining why my posts have come across a little a-b-c'ish... I thought you didn't see this inference. So we agree there. Ok.


>But remember I also wrote that emotion
>dictates much of our thought.

But judging by our earlier agreement, I would assume then that you also agree that some emotions correlate to objective, existing moral facts?


>For example, if a community is
>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive. This
>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>emotional thing to do.

What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and that there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?


>This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of
>emotional reasoning.

Um, which analogy? I don't believe I've overlooked this. I've merely pointed out that ONLY if objective moral values exist do "emotions" have ANY valid reason for entering into the deliberative process. No? (This is another mutation of the statement "reason will not take you to morality").






>>If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you
>and
>>I can go.
>
>
>Don't flatter yourself.


Haha... not tryin' to man. But you have to admit that if it really was that first point that was being contended (the mistaken impression I've been under) that there was no hope for further dialogue... I mean.. if someone doesn't see that inference... what can you say? Nuttin...






>If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said it
>is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity.


No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective". Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking about the perceived, not the perception.

>There can be validity
>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and a
>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance, both
>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>each individual's capabilities to make subjective assessments.


No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about "whether the light was on or not". We are talking about the perceived, not the perception.

>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion that
>is more valid.

No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.





>I disagree
>with the notion that religious activism is any different. You
>keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.


Cause you're not observing that in the case of the "relativist versus the religious activist"... the first is dogmatically imposing HIS OWN subjective moral notion, and the latter is appealing to what is objectively, right for ALL men.

This is plain as night and day, and if you don't see it, I'm wondering if we really did make any progress on that first point or not.

No doubt you'll say this... "Yes of course I see that, but SINCE the religious activist has no grounds for assuming that his particular religous notion is the one corresponding to what is objectively right in the world, he's STILL merely asserting his own dogmatic opinion over others".

To that I answer this:

There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called moral absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God is God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS He showed them.

Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this: "Is there reason to believe He has?"


(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised, that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of science is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea what they're talking about)