Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[POI]

maybe we are ignoring some and not others and this is where the disagreement surfaces?

I reckon the deist/theist will argue you cannot ignore your 'god given intuitions'. If I were to ask any deist/theist, in any state of mind, their answer would always be the same, when asked if murder is ever good. They would always state "no". However, if they were asked if 'gay sex' is ever good, or if 'abortion' is ever good, why is this 'intuition giver' now giving differing answers to differing folks?

Isn't what you are asking here, pointing out that there are some morals which are (perhaps) universally accepted, and others which are not?
If so, why not simply look at those that are as being possible evidence for these supposed 'god given intuitions' and anything else is not a moral issue and also needn't be regarded as claims to seriously consider?

Judging the rightness and wrongness of any/all instances of abortion, gay sex, slavery, and euthanasia, are then not really moral issues? Seems one would need to dabble in mental gymnastics to gather such a conclusion, being these 4 topics are hotly debated and very emotional. Such 'gut reactions' and/or 'intuitive senses' flourish just as much surrounding these topics, verses any of the others which are instead universally agreed upon.

[SiNcE_1985]

Since you insist on some invisible and supernatural force as "the origin", then maybe you can engage the simple test asked in post 116?

The answer to the latter 2 questions in post 116, is 'yes".

So, now that it has been answered, do you accept Christ as Lord and Savior?

[POI]

Since you insist on some invisible and supernatural force as "the origin", then maybe you can engage the simple test asked in post 116?

The answer to the latter 2 questions in post 116, is 'yes".

So, now that it has been answered, do you accept Christ as Lord and Savior?

You missed the actual unanswered question.

C) Exactly when is it good to engage in euthanasia?

[SiNcE_1985]

You missed the actual unanswered question.

C) Exactly when is it good to engage in euthanasia?

Engage in euthanasia when/if the Holy Spirit moves you to do so.

[POI]

You missed the actual unanswered question.

C) Exactly when is it good to engage in euthanasia?

Engage in euthanasia when/if the Holy Spirit moves you to do so.

Do you honestly think the "Holy Spirit" moves all believers in the same way, in regard to the topic of engaging in a euthanasia event?

[SiNcE_1985]

Do you honestly think the "Holy Spirit" moves all believers in the same way, in regard to the topic of engaging in a euthanasia event?

As long as the movement is in the right direction, it doesn't matter if it is the same direction.

[POI]

Do you honestly think the "Holy Spirit" moves all believers in the same way, in regard to the topic of engaging in a euthanasia event?

As long as the movement is in the right direction, it doesn't matter if it is the same direction.

?????????

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #121]

[url]Such 'gut reactions' and/or 'intuitive senses' flourish just as much surrounding these topics, verses any of the others which are instead universally agreed upon.[/quote]

What still mystifies me is what exactly do folk mean by universally agreed upon morals.

[TRANSPONDER]

Do you honestly think the "Holy Spirit" moves all believers in the same way, in regard to the topic of engaging in a euthanasia event?

As long as the movement is in the right direction, it doesn't matter if it is the same direction.

?????????

I don't get that, either. It sounds a bit like a recent posting palapparently following duvine inspiration to invent his own brand of Christianity where works saves rather than Faith, although where Works don't suit, like giving away all your dosh to the poor, that is sidelines as #Jesus isn't on earth anymore, so we don't have to do what he says'.

Perhaps our pal above will explain what was meant.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #121]

[url]Such 'gut reactions' and/or 'intuitive senses' flourish just as much surrounding these topics, verses any of the others which are instead universally agreed upon.

What still mystifies me is what exactly do folk mean by universally agreed upon morals.

From what I've seen, it looks like a fallacy I invented (proud ) called the 'old hand fallacy'. This is when someone who has been doing a job for twenty years treats a new hand like an idiot because he expects him to know the job by instinct and forgets that he had to learn it himself. Thus we forget the lifetime process of being taught moral codes and conventions and think they are a natural or god - given law.

Sure, animal likes and dislikes are evolutionary instinct, but all other morals are human constructs, taught over a lifetime, some never seem to learn them but still use the natural instinct ' "I want, I want".