
/(hudson)
/If all morality were relative- big hairy deal.

As I said, you appear to be the only person saying that all morality
is relative.  Most people I know do hold some absolutes in their
moral system.

I >>personally<< believe that the dignity of the individual and the right
of free will are absolutes.  I recognize that there are some moral
systems around which don't accept this; I reject them as dangerous
and anti-social (nazism, some forms of communism, fundamentalist
xtianity--no, that's not a slam).  But for the most part, almost
every moral system agrees on these two points.




(me)


/(hudson)
/Generally, Christians believe in a Creator-Creation distinction.  Other
/religions believe in one big whole.   I don't accept yor premises.

Too bad.  I know I'm right, so I get to enforce my view upon you whether
you like my premise or not.  And since you can't prove otherwise, there
isn't even an intellectual basis for your resistance to accepting my
viewpoint.






/(hudson)
/I don't think so.  once morality becomes relative, it degenerates.  I am
/saying that reasoning that it is generally evil to hurt other people is bad.
/(though I don't think it is sufficient.)  


Well, then answer me this:   you seem to be opposed to moral relativism
(as you call it) because it has the capacity to degenerate.  Obviously,
then, you would advocate a nonrelative (absolute) moral system.

Whose absolutist moral system do we choose?  

How do we come to this decision?

What about people who disagree with the chosen moral system?





/(hudson)
/But if morality is considered to
/be relative, and this rule isn't based on anything, but is just an arbitrary
/rule, people might abandon it.

Fine.  I can agree with most of what you typed here.  However, just because
morality gets based on something nonrelative does NOT mean that we have to
pick your xtianity as its base.