to "Is there any room for disagreement on that question?"

(The question is "is it moral to kill Hitler")

If there IS room for disagreement then it is not objective and there clearly is room for disagreement

No, that wasn't the question.

"Is it morally bad to kill Hitler?"

Is there any room for disagreement on that question?
↪Noble Dust if the answer is yes then it is not self evident and thus not objective — khaled

I never responded to that question, and as far as I can tell, you added it in later.

Ok then you could respond now

Is there room for disagreement on the question
"is it moral to kill Hitler"

are we both lost? Is it just me? What's happening right now?

I just assumed you'd respond in the positive as there very clearly is room for disagreement (it was a rhetorical question)

Here's a prime example of morals. You added the Hitler question later; I saw that, and then I distrusted you once I saw it. Now, morally, I don't trust you, because you seem like the type who twists words.

Khaled, am I correct in gathering that you are taking some action to be moral for some agent to perform if it achieves a result desired by that particular agent? If so, could one action be moral for some agent to perform and immoral for another agent to perform, if the result that action achieves is desirable for the former agent and not desirable for the latter?

And Noble Dust, are you attempting to identify an action that is universally moral across all agents?

I can promise you I wasn't trying to do that consciously I swear. I was using a rhetorical question. Are you seriously going to try to say that there is no room for disagreement on whether or not killing Hitler is moral?

I'm not going to say anything about that subject because I never engaged in that conversation in this thread, yes.

If so, could one action be moral for some agent to perform and immoral for another agent to perform — Bearden

But that would go against the definition of an objective morality so I believe that at that point you should discard the concept altogether. Morality and relativism don't go together

I'm not going to say anything about that subject because I never engaged in that conversation in this thread, yes. — Noble Dust

what's the yes for?

ok I think we're both really confused (at least I am) do you mind rebooting this conversation to when you were asking why it's impossible for murder to be objectively wrong? (Check the 2nd page if you really don't trust me that much :cry: )

Woah, let's back up; I asked why it's impossible for it to be objective that killing is wrong. — Noble Dust

Sorry if I over-reacted. I've had many of these debates here, so the skin toughens a little bit.

As to murder, I was asking you why it's impossible for murder to be objectively wrong.

because it is simply possible to disagree about whether or not murder is wrong but one cannot disagree about whether or not one exists for example (THAT'S a self evident truth, has no moral implications though :confused: )

I may have mixed up which of you was arguing which point, my apologies. Khaled I might agree that in describing morality in terms of the wants of an agent we lose some sense of what we intend with the word morality. Can you suggest a precise description of morality that avoids this problem?

Ok, can you demonstrate those positions? So far, they're just statements.

if murder was right there would be no logical inconsistency however if "I exist" was wrong there WOULD be a logical inconsistency.

what do you mean "demonstrate"

"show"

Morality: A self evident ought

Are either of you advocating any particular proposition?

oh yeah ok. "Is killing Hitler as a baby wrong". There is room for disagreement here.

"Does something exists". Yes. There is no room for disagreement here that is not logically inconsistent.

My standard for an objective morality is as high as that latter case therefore I don't think an objective morality is possible

I'm advocating that an objective morality is impossible

I'm confused.

I get that a lot I'll try to elaborate

Khaled can I take that to mean “There is no action that is universally moral across all agents.”