"That there is a black and white, yes or no absolute truth for every situation?"

I would say, yes, for every situation NOT involving subjective human perceptions. For example, it may be absolutely true that lettuce has chlorophyll and rigid cell walls. It is not absolutely true that it tastes good. That is a matter of personal interpretation. Without a reference point outside of ourselves for a certain idea, we cannot lay claim to truth. Thus, to imply that morality can possess absolute truth is to immediately throw God into the mix. As a result, having this discussion with you is silly as we have to deal with the God question before we deal with the absolute morality question.

"For example, is homosexuality wrong? Abortion (I know you think it is)? Our recents wars overseas? Stem-cell research?"

It's a matter of degree. Those that think that every moral matter can be boiled down to an absolute yes or no irritate me to no end. We live in a morally ambiguous universe. For every action, there are consequences, both good and bad. By researching stem cells, we may cure diseases such as Alzheimers, we may repair spinal cord damage, we may cure many cancers, saving many lives. But to do so we must kill pre-fetuses. So it is a matter of degree. We have to decide which group of implications, the good or bad, outweigh the other.

• Nope. - kc2gwx - October 19, 2002 - 22:49 UTC
  • Platonic Ideals - stormcrow - October 20, 2002 - 07:34 UTC
    • That is what the founding fathers tried to do - yaniru - October 20, 2002 - 12:05 UTC
      • You also said John Quincy Adams wrote basic draft of our Constit - carefuluniverse - October 20, 2002 - 21:49 UTC
        • igorant igorant igorant igorant igorant - spazcon - October 20, 2002 - 22:54 UTC
          • So I mixed up the father and the son - yaniru - October 21, 2002 - 12:32 UTC
    • Can a person be ethical if their conversation is unethical? - quiet - October 22, 2002 - 10:29 UTC