I sincerely hope there is a hell...

[Lindir The Green]

Upon what basis are you against "stonings and genocide and murder"?

Upon what basis do you make the statement "oppression of minorities, or a majority not in power, is bad"?

Emotion, and the conditioning of living in my society. My whole point is that there never is any logical basis for these decisions, so we make due with emotion shaped by evolution, which is relative.

Is it mere personal preference? Is morality merely an aggregrate of personal preferences? If the state of South Carolina secedes and the aggregrate of personal preferences in that state is to "kill all them sand n*ggers dead", and South Carolina proceeds to kill every Arab-looking person in the state, is it moral for South Carolina to do that?

Yes.

But it is also moral for me to try to stop them, and declare it immoral by my morality.

The whole idea of everybody having "natural" rights strays into religious territory, and makes no sense without it. Natural rights are whatever people say they are otherwise, so, without a higher being deciding for us, they are relative.

Anybody who says that morality is absolute means that their morality is absolute, but when everyone says that it becomes relative.

[tombom]

Why shouldn't I say that they are evil if I find that their actions violate the natural rights that each person has simply by virtue of being alive? I'm sorry, but the morality of systematic killings and genocide is not to be left up to mere individual opinion. There's something deeper and more fundamental at play here.

Where morals come from isn't universally agreed at all. Although you strongly feel that killing people is wrong, others might not. There's absolutely no way of saying one is right and one isn't.

Almost everyone agrees that genocides aren't good; almost every genocide in history has happened because of exceptional circumstances which has warped people's moral judgments. What about the death penalty? Normally mild mannered people will often strongly feel that somebody should be put to death because they've committed a certain crime. In this case, is it acceptable for the person who committed a serious crime to be put to death? Morals are really hard to pin down and making blanket statements is really hard.

[Felix the Cat]

I refer you again to the idea of natural rights for the "where morals come from".

[tombom]

I refer you again to the idea of natural rights for the "where morals come from".

That's just one idea that's not widely agreed upon. That is the problem with philosophical problems.

[Neddie]

I refer you again to the idea of natural rights for the "where morals come from".

In my experience, "morals" are generated normally through the interaction of one with his or her enviroment, coupled with internal pressure from hormones and biological mechanisms. Many groups attempt to codify "morals" and teach them formally, see the Catholic Church, but these moral codes have a much lower rate of adherence, as easily observed, than those generated by the individual in question.

[Lindir The Green]

I refer you again to the idea of natural rights for the "where morals come from".

Who decides what the natural rights are? People decide them for themselves. That's why they're relative.

This is just getting circular.

[Felix the Cat]

I refer you again to the idea of natural rights for the "where morals come from".

Who decides what the natural rights are? People decide them for themselves. That's why they're relative.

This is just getting circular.

The whole idea of natural rights is that they come from some other source than our opinions.

If people decide for themselves what others' rights are, then they are not, by definition, natural rights.