So you're saying that I cannot change my morals? Your morals change as you grow ALL THE TIME.
Oh, I think you can change your morals. It's your theory that says your morals cannot change. Once you accept one moral statement as fact, it remains fact - to say otherwise would be to admit that there is a contradiction in your logic.

What you could say, however, is that your theory works like this:

Fact 1: Today at 3:00 pm my mood was so and so thus killing my mother was moral.
Fact 2: Today at 3:01 pm my mood was better so killing my mother was immoral.
Fact 3: Today at 5:20 pm I decided that after all, killing my mother was okay.

And so on and so on. Do you agree with this?
I agree (however I do not recall saying that your morals cannot change, only that you decide what they are). Your morality depends on your past experience and your current condition.
Okay, good. But we already agreed that people can be convinced to change their mind. Thus it is logically possible for me to convince you that today at 3:00 pm, murdering your mother was immoral. Let's "assume" I do that, then you get the two following facts:

Fact 1: Today at 3:00 pm my mood was so and so thus killing my mother was moral.
Fact 2: Today at 5:00 pm my mood was so and so and thus today at 3:00 pm I was wrong.

These two facts contradict each other. How do you consolidate this with your theory, that whatever you think is the one and only moral truth?

however I do not recall saying that your morals cannot change, only that you decide what they are)

Yes, this is what I just explained in our conversation. That your view entails morals cannot change.
Simple. Think of morality as being one of three terms.

A - Moral
B - Neither Moral nor Immoral
C - Immoral

An act can only have one of these three terms at any given time. Therefore, you cannot think that something is moral and immoral. You can think something is moral now that was immoral before, but you cannot think of something as a combination of the three values.
I agree, but I gave you an example where you are forced to think exactly that. At 5:00 pm, it is a fact that at 3:00 pm you thought killing your mother was moral. According to your theory, this means that at 3:00 pm killing your mother was moral. At the same time at 5:00 pm I convinced you that you were wrong at 3:00 pm. Thus it is a fact (according to your theory) that:

At 5:00 your mood was so and so and thus killing your mother at 3:00 pm was immoral.

Which is a contradiction to the first statement, which claims it was moral.
The act can only be moral at a particular time. It does not matter if at 3:00 killing my mother was immoral, if it's 5:00 and I think killing my mother is moral, it's moral.
But what if at 5:00 you think that <at 3:00 killing your mother is moral>? That's the point I'm trying to make.
Wouldn't change a thing. Because it's at a different time. If killing my mother is immoral at 3:00 at 3:00 and it's moral to kill my mother at 3:00 at 5:00, they are two separate "systems."
It's not a different time. At 5:00 pm both facts are true:

Killing your mother at 3:00 pm was moral (because that's what you thought at 3:00 pm, thus it remains a fact about reality).
Killing your mother at 3:00 pm was immoral (because that's what you think right now).
No, the killing my mother can only have one morality value at any given time. You would ask me "Is killing your mother moral?" at 5:00. I would respond "No" because that is my mind's current state. If you asked me if I felt that killing my mother was moral (now) at 3:00, then I would respond "Yes" (because at 3:00 killing my mother was moral). Ultimately though, the morality of 3 seconds ago doesn't matter, what matters is only the morality of now.
I can't clarify this more than I already have. Let's say it's 5:00pm.

If right now you agree that killing your mother at 3:00pm was immoral, then currently it is fact that killing your mother at 3:00pm was immoral. This is fact according to your theory.

However, at 3:00 pm you thought that killing your mother was moral. Thus it is fact that at 3:00 pm killing your mother was moral.

So in this instant, in 5:00pm, there is a logical contradiction.
I'm still stuck on the kitten issue.
You're still talking about two different reference frames and events in reference frames are independent of each other.
The world is the same world. Facts about a specific point in time remain the same. Different reference frames is a buzzword until you explain exactly what you don't understand or have an issue with here.
No, they really aren't. Events in independent reference frames are independent of each other. Look up relativity.

In a nutshell. It doesn't matter how I feel about whatever NOW because whatever I feel NOW has no impact on what happened THEN. You're trying to say a contradiction arises because of two independent events that aren't linked in any way.

If you're trying to say my feelings about something now contradict feelings about something earlier, you are right in that they can differ, but it does not change either event. They can't "contradict each other" because they are not at the same time.

You can make me feel that a particular choice was not the best now, but it does not change that the event was moral as I did it.

In all honesty this is getting silly. You're trying to argue something that you don't have an opinion on. It's "in the making." "A solution exists, it hasn't been found yet." I suppose zombies exist too, we just haven't found evidence for them yet.
Sorry, I really can't think of any way I can further clarify my point to you, and I don't think I have an idea of what you're talking about either. This is high time to end this argument.

My retrospective:
- The discussion could've been more structured. We didn't clearly present our point, but rather had to flesh it out through exerting discussion and questioning.
- I felt both you and I did not present our points very clearly. I had to spend a great time explaining my position to you and in turn, it seemed to take you a very long time to clearly phrase your position (you seemed to be struggling with whether you want to say A or B a lot of the time)
- This is a "complaint" towards you, but maybe it applies to me as well: I felt you oftentimes waved a complex argument I was making with a single, vague sentence which did not feel like a proper response.
- There was a lot of circular back-and-forth, especially this latest exchange.

As this was practice for a writing class, I'd imagine those are points you might want to work on in the future.

Thanks for the slightly-too-long chat, and adieu!
Oh, this is not writing practice. The actual blog post would've been. This is just me playing your silly game. Now if you asked for a full essay on why individual morality exists but no general morality can, then you would get the full argument setup. It's too difficult to keep things "formal" and "organized" through comments; and frankly, I can't be bothered.
See, telling someone who obliged you for quite a few hours you were just playing his "silly game" isn't the best way to end an argument.
This wasn't an argument. This was me being interrogated for most of it. And I'm not a polite person. Especially not at 11pm. Get used to it when it comes to me.
Page: 1 2 3 4