Quake3World

AIDS CURES FAGS

tnf wrote:

R00k wrote: I think the way I would say it is that, it is never good to have faith in a certain belief system.

Nothing wrong with having a belief system, but to think it's infallible and superior to all others will never promote harmony in the human race. It's the antithesis to diversity.

So, then, once again, I will ask you, what makes one belief system, morality, whatever, better than another? For one to be superior to another, it must align more closely to a set of established criteria that represent the ideal 'infallible' belief system. Otherwise, there is no justification in saying that the Nazi morality was inherently bad. Inherently bad compared to what? The idea I am trying to get across is that there MUST be some 'moral law' that is, inherently, infallible....whether or not humans really have stumbled across that yet is up for debate. But I believe, firmly, that it does exist. And I would argue that, whether you are atheist or Muslim or Christian or Jew, the debate should not focus on whether or not there is a 'moral' or 'natural' law, but rather what the source of this law is....for example, someone might believe that what we perceive as the moral law (and what leads to moral behavior) is merely the manifestation of a property that emerges at the level of populations of organisms. A property that is the complex result of a multifactorial system including the 'desire' (not literal) of a number of genes to get themselves passed on to another generation. But does suggesting that the moral law is a genetic factor (albeit a complicated one) not strike a blow to the notion of free will?

So, to sum up, Rook - I don't want to come across as saying I KNOW what the best belief system is, or that I am 100% certain I know this 'moral law', but rather, that there must be some standard by which moralities are compared - and this standard should have some measure of infallibility to it (i.e. a definite answer on what is right and wrong - however inconvenient said answer might be in a given situation.) If no such thing exists, then we have no definitive standard for comparison of moralities, and thus no justification in saying one is superior to another.

I'm paraphrasing C.S. Lewis here, big time, btw.

That's what a democratic republic is supposed to be for. It takes away the necessity of a faith-based morality, and relies on the most basic moral tenets that are common to the people to define right and wrong for the purposes of justice.

I am not saying it's not good for people to have their own systems of morality and beliefs -- I'm just saying that any such belief system that is exclusive and divisive, and makes no room to change with the times and people's perceptions, directly leads to the abuse and persecution of people by its own doctrine.

And any belief system that denounces people with terms like "evil" is a logical precursor to abuse and persecution - much like Gonzales' memo that redefines and legitimizes torture is a defacto precursor to that torture taking place.

Edit: I am by no means arguing against the good of the inherent morality of people. People striving to develop their own moral belief systems of what is right and wrong, I believe, is probably the single best use of the intelligence human beings have developed.

I also agree with you that the center of any debate on morality should be the 'source' of that moral or natural law, as opposed to the law itself.
Although I take a different approach to the source. Instead of basing it on physical laws and interactions, I believe the framers of our Constitution had it right -- morality should be based on your own - and therefore everyone's - basic human rights and dignities.

That, in my opinion, is infallible, because every action against another person that you would not wish upon yourself is inherently wrong. And even though the bible holds the same to be true (the golden rule), it should not be hard to accept that both the bible and our framers got the idea from the same place; as opposed to thinking the framers must have gotten their idea from the bible.

That is one of my biggest problems with religions - each one of them, in their own way, tries to claim credit for certain human beliefs that could be derived by any logical person, whether the bible or koran was ever written or not.

whatchu talkin bout willis

plained wrote:whatchu talkin bout willis

i love it when a plan comes together :tiresey:

*football pat on the arse hehe

R00k wrote:


I also agree with you that the center of any debate on morality should be the 'source' of that moral or natural law, as opposed to the law itself.
Although I take a different approach to the source. Instead of basing it on physical laws and interactions, I believe the framers of our Constitution had it right -- morality should be based on your own - and therefore everyone's - basic human rights and dignities.

That, in my opinion, is infallible, because every action against another person that you would not wish upon yourself is inherently wrong. And even though the bible holds the same to be true (the golden rule), it should not be hard to accept that both the bible and our framers got the idea from the same place; as opposed to thinking the framers must have gotten their idea from the bible.

That is one of my biggest problems with religions - each one of them, in their own way, tries to claim credit for certain human beliefs that could be derived by any logical person, whether the bible or koran was ever written or not.

I'm not sure if you are getting what I am trying to say here, so let me give you a quick rundown on the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence -

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Forget God at this point...the term "Laws of Nature" are used here. In their case, the implication was that they come from a God. But that is not what we are debating at this point. The bottom line is that there IS a real, true, infallible moral standard, somewhere out there. Religions think they might have found it, others argue they have not. But that doesn't mean that humans do not, as a rule, understand that there is a real 'right and wrong.' We may differ at times over how the law is interpreted, but the fact that we can debate and discuss means that we are both agreeing on the fact that there one morality is closer than another to the infallible one.

But as I read your statement closer now, I think you've made yourself clear - you do believe in an absolute moral law - The Golden Rule. Do Unto Others as You'd Have Done to You.

So, it would be fair to say you believe that this belief system is inherently infallible and superior to others. That is all I wanted to hear from the beginning. That you accept the existence of a true moral law.

Now, if you'll humor me. You say that you don't need to read the Bible, or the Koran, or any 'book' to understand this moral law - that human beings just 'understand it.' Why is this?

R00k wrote:
I think the way I would say it is that, it is never good to have faith in a certain belief system.

Nothing wrong with having a belief system, but to think it's infallible and superior to all others will never promote harmony in the human race. It's the antithesis to diversity.

See Rook ,when you make this statement, it doesn't sound like you would think the Golden Rule has any measure of infallibility to it. Or even the basic work of the framers of the constitution.

plained wrote:whatchu talkin bout willis

Who is Willis?

tnf wrote:

R00k wrote:


I also agree with you that the center of any debate on morality should be the 'source' of that moral or natural law, as opposed to the law itself.
Although I take a different approach to the source. Instead of basing it on physical laws and interactions, I believe the framers of our Constitution had it right -- morality should be based on your own - and therefore everyone's - basic human rights and dignities.

That, in my opinion, is infallible, because every action against another person that you would not wish upon yourself is inherently wrong. And even though the bible holds the same to be true (the golden rule), it should not be hard to accept that both the bible and our framers got the idea from the same place; as opposed to thinking the framers must have gotten their idea from the bible.

That is one of my biggest problems with religions - each one of them, in their own way, tries to claim credit for certain human beliefs that could be derived by any logical person, whether the bible or koran was ever written or not.

I'm not sure if you are getting what I am trying to say here, so let me give you a quick rundown on the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence -

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Forget God at this point...the term "Laws of Nature" are used here. In their case, the implication was that they come from a God. But that is not what we are debating at this point. The bottom line is that there IS a real, true, infallible moral standard, somewhere out there. Religions think they might have found it, others argue they have not. But that doesn't mean that humans do not, as a rule, understand that there is a real 'right and wrong.' We may differ at times over how the law is interpreted, but the fact that we can debate and discuss means that we are both agreeing on the fact that there one morality is closer than another to the infallible one.

But as I read your statement closer now, I think you've made yourself clear - you do believe in an absolute moral law - The Golden Rule. Do Unto Others as You'd Have Done to You.

So, it would be fair to say you believe that this belief system is inherently infallible and superior to others. That is all I wanted to hear from the beginning. That you accept the existence of a true moral law.

Now, if you'll humor me. You say that you don't need to read the Bible, or the Koran, or any 'book' to understand this moral law - that human beings just 'understand it.' Why is this?

Well, it's my opinion that it's infallible only in a logical sense. In order to be protected from negative actions perpetrated against yourself, you have to protect everyone from having those same actions perpetrated against them, and you cannot perpetrate those actions against others yourself.

The Declaration focused on basic principles, but did not define morality - it only set out a very few things that everyone agrees on; that people should be able to stay alive if they want, and be free to pursue whatever they want as long as they did not infringe on others' rights for that same pursuit.

Now, I see the analogy that you're making between my golden rule statement, and your statement that everyone believes there is some true definition of morality out there to be found. But I think we've moved afield of the distinction I was trying to make: that of a faith-based morality, and that of a reasoned and empathetic one.

I don't mean that the golden rule/Declaration idea is necessarily the one infallible definition of morality, as much as that it is approaching the question in the correct way -- that of empathetic logic, as opposed to basing morality directly on what you have read or been told it is.

tnf wrote:

R00k wrote:
I think the way I would say it is that, it is never good to have faith in a certain belief system.

Nothing wrong with having a belief system, but to think it's infallible and superior to all others will never promote harmony in the human race. It's the antithesis to diversity.

See Rook ,when you make this statement, it doesn't sound like you would think the Golden Rule has any measure of infallibility to it. Or even the basic work of the framers of the constitution.

I don't think that it's infallible, or all-encompassing. I believe there are questions of morality that are not even covered by it. But I believe it is based on a life of interaction with others who share the planet with us, and it is infallible as a logical approach to other questions; as opposed to an approach that says 2000-year old wise men who are unavailable for comment have told you in black and white what to do and what not to do.

R00k wrote:

tnf wrote:

R00k wrote:
I think the way I would say it is that, it is never good to have faith in a certain belief system.

Nothing wrong with having a belief system, but to think it's infallible and superior to all others will never promote harmony in the human race. It's the antithesis to diversity.

See Rook ,when you make this statement, it doesn't sound like you would think the Golden Rule has any measure of infallibility to it. Or even the basic work of the framers of the constitution.

I don't think that it's infallible, or all-encompassing. I believe there are questions of morality that are not even covered by it. But I believe it is based on a life of interaction with others who share the planet with us; as opposed to an approach that says 2000-year old wise men who are unavailable for comment have told you in black and white what to do and what not to do.

You keep wanting to make this an issue of "I just don't want to have anything to do with the laws given in the Bible." I've been leaving any refernces to holy books out, period, on purpose. It is an entirely different debate.

So its not infallible...why is this? What moral tenet(s) does it not address, and what is the source of this/these moral tenet(s)? If there is no absolute moral law, than it is pointless to say that this is not 'all-encompassing.' All-encompassing of what?

All-encompasing of the set of moral tenets that make up the absolute, infallible, moral law?

thanks for the heads up tnf.

*note to self, stay out of the city this weekend*

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

VoxProminence wrote:this shit disgusts me. Land of the free my ass.

the "land of the free?" whoever told you that is your enemy

lol, nice work

tnf wrote:You keep wanting to make this an issue of "I just don't want to have anything to do with the laws given in the Bible." I've been leaving any refernces to holy books out, period, on purpose. It is an entirely different debate.

I understand that, but religious teachings are exactly what I was addressing with my first post, so I see no reason they should be excluded from the debate. The religious idea that one set of highly specific rights-and-wrongs is more correct than another, and anyone who believes otherwise is labelled as evil, is a logical precursor to the problems that religion has brought us.

tnf wrote:So its not infallible...why is this? What moral tenet(s) does it not address, and what is the source of this/these moral tenet(s)? If there is no absolute moral law, than it is pointless to say that this is not 'all-encompassing.' All-encompassing of what?

All-encompasing of the set of moral tenets that make up the absolute, infallible, moral law?

The point I was trying to raise is about fundamentalist Christians holding a convention stating that people can be cured of homosexuality. I don't believe that the Declaration of Independence should replace the Bible as a source of guidance in people's personal lives - but when it comes to dealing with other people, then maybe it should. The bible teaches hate - the Declaration does not.

R00k wrote:

tnf wrote:You keep wanting to make this an issue of "I just don't want to have anything to do with the laws given in the Bible." I've been leaving any refernces to holy books out, period, on purpose. It is an entirely different debate.

I understand that, but religious teachings are exactly what I was addressing with my first post, so I see no reason they should be excluded from the debate. The religious idea that one set of highly specific rights-and-wrongs is more correct than another, and anyone who believes otherwise is labelled as evil, is a logical precursor to the problems that religion has brought us.

tnf wrote:So its not infallible...why is this? What moral tenet(s) does it not address, and what is the source of this/these moral tenet(s)? If there is no absolute moral law, than it is pointless to say that this is not 'all-encompassing.' All-encompassing of what?

All-encompasing of the set of moral tenets that make up the absolute, infallible, moral law?

The point I was trying to raise is about fundamentalist Christians holding a convention stating that people can be cured of homosexuality. I don't believe that the Declaration of Independence should replace the Bible as a source of guidance in people's personal lives - but when it comes to dealing with other people, then maybe it should. The bible teaches hate - the Declaration does not.

Congratulations. You've successfully dodged the issue enough that I am dropping it.

So, there is no ultimate moral law, but the majority of belief systems fail miserably in their attempts to teach morality - failing by being compared to some 'infallible' moral law that does not exist - so therefore all moralities are could be considered equal, because there is no infallible standard for comparison. The golden rule is not all-encompassing, but there are no real and true moral tenets to be encompassed. Interesting.

And yes, Christ teaches a lot of hate.

"The religious idea that one set of highly specific rights-and-wrongs is more correct than another, and anyone who believes otherwise is labelled as evil, is a logical precursor to the problems that religion has brought"

Again, That is NOT A RELIGIOUS IDEA. That is a basic human idea, held by atheists and religious people alike. For you to THINK THAT WHAT RELIGION DOES IS EVIL, OR TO THINK THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES HATE YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE BIBLE MORALITY IS NOT AS CORRECT AS YOURS, AND THUS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

I never wanted to venture into what 'religion' had it most right, I just wanted you to realize that you keep contradicting yourself by saying what one religion does is wrong, then avoiding the question of what 'infallible moral standard' they are wrong in relation to. I don't expect you, or anyone here (myself included) to know that answer with certainty.

Your option is all out moral relativism. If that is what you believe in, you should have said so from the beginning. (remember, we dare not say that one set of beliefs is 'less evil' than another.)

BTW Rook, I am not meaning to get out of a civil argument here....So, don't take my exasperation as anger or whatever.

tnf wrote:Congratulations. You've successfully dodged the issue enough that I am dropping it.

So, there is no ultimate moral law, but the majority of belief systems fail miserably in their attempts to teach morality - failing by being compared to some 'infallible' moral law that does not exist - so therefore all moralities are could be considered equal, because there is no infallible standard for comparison. The golden rule is not all-encompassing, but there are no real and true moral tenets to be encompassed. Interesting.

And yes, Christ teaches a lot of hate.

"The religious idea that one set of highly specific rights-and-wrongs is more correct than another, and anyone who believes otherwise is labelled as evil, is a logical precursor to the problems that religion has brought"

Again, That is NOT A RELIGIOUS IDEA. That is a basic human idea, held by atheists and religious people alike. For you to THINK THAT WHAT RELIGION DOES IS EVIL, OR TO THINK THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES HATE YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE BIBLE MORALITY IS NOT AS CORRECT AS YOURS, AND THUS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

I never wanted to venture into what 'religion' had it most right, I just wanted you to realize that you keep contradicting yourself by saying what one religion does is wrong, then avoiding the question of what 'infallible moral standard' they are wrong in relation to. I don't expect you, or anyone here (myself included) to know that answer with certainty.

Bear with me here man, I'm not trying to dodge the issue, and I see the point you are trying to make.

I would say that the 'infallible moral standard' that popular religions are wrong in relation to, is the demonizing of anyone who doesn't believe as you do.

While there are a lot of different morality systems, only religions and cults demonize people who do not subscribe to them.

So I suppose that means I believe that not demonizing other people who feel differently than you do is a moral standard that I hold in high regard.

But that does not mean I have an unchanging, infallible code of morality. This single moral belief of mine is one of many. Some of them have remained unchanged through my whole life, while others have changed due to people I meet and experiences I have had.

I think that is fairly straightforward, so now that I've answered questions about my self, you can see why I don't believe there can or should be a single set of moral standards for everyone to follow.

Are we still on the same page here?

edit: And I never said that Christ himself teaches hate - I said the bible does. And demonizing certain groups of people (homosexuals in this instance) is teaching hate, in my opinion.

And no I don't take any of it personally.

Also, my stance would be called moral relativism.

But keep in mind this small difference: I do think it would be very nice, in an idealistic sense, for everyone in the world to live happily under the same set of moral certainties and guildelines. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is at all possible within the framework of a free society. As a matter of fact, I think that ideal and a free society are mutually exclusive.

MKJ wrote:i love it when a plan comes together

It is so choice. I highly recommend picking one up if you have the means.

R00k wrote: I think that is fairly straightforward, so now that I've answered questions about my self, you can see why I don't believe there can or should be a single set of moral standards for everyone to follow.

Are we still on the same page here?

edit: And I never said that Christ himself teaches hate - I said the bible does. And demonizing certain groups of people (homosexuals in this instance) is teaching hate, in my opinion.

And no I don't take any of it personally.

Than why were we justified in WWII and taking out Nazi Germany?

I'm not saying we will ever all follow the same moral standards right down to the letter, but if there does not exist some true standard of what is ultimately right and wrong, you invalidate your argument for saying that what GWB does is wrong, or what Hitler did was wrong. If there is no single set of moral standards that is 'perfect' , then we cannot justifiably say that one behavior is better than another - even if that behavior causes someone else harm - because you said yourself that the Golden Rule is not infallible nor all encompassing - so therefore it cannot be used as the standard. (and again, I am not saying we know what these perfect standards are...just that you, mean, and most everyone, are acting under the belief that they do exist).

tnf wrote:

R00k wrote: I think that is fairly straightforward, so now that I've answered questions about my self, you can see why I don't believe there can or should be a single set of moral standards for everyone to follow.

Are we still on the same page here?

edit: And I never said that Christ himself teaches hate - I said the bible does. And demonizing certain groups of people (homosexuals in this instance) is teaching hate, in my opinion.

And no I don't take any of it personally.

Than why were we justified in WWII and taking out Nazi Germany?

I'm not saying we will ever all follow the same moral standards right down to the letter, but if there does not exist some true standard of what is ultimately right and wrong, you invalidate your argument for saying that what GWB does is wrong, or what Hitler did was wrong. If there is no single set of moral standards that is 'perfect' , then we cannot justifiably say that one behavior is better than another - even if that behavior causes someone else harm - because you said yourself that the Golden Rule is not infallible nor all encompassing - so therefore it cannot be used as the standard. (and again, I am not saying we know what these perfect standards are...just that you, mean, and most everyone, are acting under the belief that they do exist).

Well, saying that what Hitler did was wrong does not necessarily imply that there is a certain set of perfect moral standards, in my opinion. What Hitler did was wrong, because out of pure instinct, people would know that it was wrong if it had been done to them.

Now, I don't mean to say that because of the golden rule, this makes it wrong. I mean that almost every person in the world, without ever knowing or reading anything about morals, will tell you that it would be wrong for someone to starve them and kill them.

I also believe this to be true for a lot of the things Bush has done - except for the fact that the information and facts are so twisted by the time they reach everyday people, there isn't much chance of them identifying with what's really going on, much less take a personal interest in it.

R00k wrote:
Well, saying that what Hitler did was wrong does not necessarily imply that there is a certain set of perfect moral standards, in my opinion. What Hitler did was wrong, because out of pure instinct, people would know that it was wrong if it had been done to them.

Now, I don't mean to say that because of the golden rule, this makes it wrong. I mean that almost every person in the world, without ever knowing or reading anything about morals, will tell you that it would be wrong for someone to starve them and kill them.

I also believe this to be true for a lot of the things Bush has done - except for the fact that the information and facts are so twisted by the time they reach everyday people, there isn't much chance of them identifying with what's really going on, much less take a personal interest in it.

You still haven't said why it is wrong. If it is because of 'the pure instinct of knowing it would be wrong if it had been done to them' - than does this instinct represent the infallible moral law?

You aren't getting it - for it to be wrong, it has to be wrong in comparison to something that is right. If there is no definitive right, than how can we say definitively that anything is wrong?

And, for the millionth time, I am not saying that anyone KNOWS what the perfectly right and wrong are in every situation, but that the mere fact we can have the debate means that both sides must, MUST, believe in an infallible ideal.

Duhard wrote:

If I saw that sign in my neighborhood, I'd clip the corner and run it the fuck over. :icon13:

R00k wrote:
Well, saying that what Hitler did was wrong does not necessarily imply that there is a certain set of perfect moral standards, in my opinion. What Hitler did was wrong, because out of pure instinct, people would know that it was wrong if it had been done to them.

Let's me see if I can bring some clarity here. Tnf's original point was about absolute moral standards (do they exist, is moral evaluation possible without presupposing them)--this is an interesting philosophical question...but it is not a question that requires an answer in order to DESCRIBE our practice(s) of moral decision making. I think the word you are looking for is 'intuition', not 'instinct'. We can tell Hitler to fuck a goat simply because his activities conflict with some of our deeply held moral intuitions. These intuitions (based on principles, standing commitments, life experiences, etc.) CAN be rationally examined. We can ask if it is rational for us to hold them, or to use them as guidelines for living. We can compare Hitler's 'moral system' with our own and act accordingly. This activity DOES NOT require moral absolutism to get off the ground. We do it all the fucking time in our everyday lives (though often without explicit awareness). Tnf, as I understand his point, is wondering whether absolute moral standards need to exist as the ground for this everyday activity to be a rationally legitimate one. Is it coherent to make any comparisons without an infallible yardstick? I personally think that it can be coherent, even without moral absolutes, although the ultimate end products in tough cases of moral deliberation are way too messy for most people to accept (human beings seem to abhor ambiguity, go figure). We ARE in a position to evaluate Hitler, on this view, because the principles that are in contention (ours vs Hitlers) can be rationally compared...true, there is a sense in which we are caught in circle if this comparative evaluation is pushed far enough...but the circle isn't necessarily a vicious one...it may simply signal a truth about the kind of creatures we are.

In other words, is this practice of morally comparing Hitler and ourselves worth jack shit if we can't point to a basic, absolute set of moral principles or standards as the ultimate justification?

In my view, we don't need to go scrounging around biological theory to develop an alternative position. It is conceivable that we have a set of standards to apply to specific cases without admitting that this set is itself unassailable. Moral relativisim, in its strongest formulation, suggests that NO set of moral standards can be considered preferable to any other set...this is prima facie a retarded position to hold. More nuanced versions of the doctrine are available, but the stronger version is usually the one battered around by impatient academics who don't give a fuck about intellectual integrity.

I realize now that I've probably clarified nothing. GG, me.

Hannibal wrote:

R00k wrote:
Well, saying that what Hitler did was wrong does not necessarily imply that there is a certain set of perfect moral standards, in my opinion. What Hitler did was wrong, because out of pure instinct, people would know that it was wrong if it had been done to them.

Let's me see if I can bring some clarity here. Tnf's original point was about absolute moral standards (do they exist, is moral evaluation possible without presupposing them)--this is an interesting philosophical question...but it is not a question that requires an answer in order to DESCRIBE our practice(s) of moral decision making. I think the word you are looking for is 'intuition', not 'instinct'. We can tell Hitler to fuck a goat simply because his activities conflict with some of our deeply held moral intuitions. These intuitions (based on principles, standing commitments, life experiences, etc.) CAN be rationally examined. We can ask if it is rational for us to hold them, or to use them as guidelines for living. We can compare Hitler's 'moral system' with our own and act accordingly. This activity DOES NOT require moral absolutism to get off the ground. We do it all the fucking time in our everyday lives (though often without explicit awareness). Tnf, as I understand his point, is wondering whether absolute moral standards need to exist as the ground for this everyday activity to be a rationally legitimate one. Is it coherent to make any comparisons without an infallible yardstick? I personally think that it can be coherent, even without moral absolutes, although the ultimate end products in tough cases of moral deliberation are way too messy for most people to accept (human beings seem to abhor ambiguity, go figure).

In other words, is this practice of morally comparing Hitler and ourselves worth jack shit if we can't point to a basic, absolute set of moral principles or standards as the ultimate justification?

In my view, we don't need to go scrounging around biological theory to develop an alternative position. It is conceivable that we have a set of standards to apply to specific cases without admitting that this set is itself unassailable. Moral relativisim, in its strongest formulation, suggests that NO set of moral standards can be considered preferable to any other set...this is prima facie a retarded position to hold. More nuanced versions of the doctrine are available, but the stronger version is usually the one battered around by impatient academics who don't give a fuck about intellectual integrity.

I realize now that I've probably clarified nothing. GG, me.

You've done a very eloquent job of summing up the discussion. I find your opinion an interesting one - something I am going to have to mull over for a bit before I can really comment. However, I still think you are missing one of my main points - how do we rationalize our behaviors? If we are telling Hitler to fuck a goat for the reasons you mention (not requiring any moral absolutism), what is it about our actions that make them inherently right and Hitler's inherently wrong (if there is no infallible yardstick.) I think the infallible yardstick exists. Obviously, there are going to be areas where it is very tough or even impossible to determine this (there are many areas that are morally ambiguous...but I don't think this must mean that there is not a real "right" answer - or answers - any more than we should think that a really difficult physics problem has no right answer.)

I don't think we have really gone anywhere in this discussion - except to maybe explain each other's position a bit better.