Who knows what kind of universe it is? I have no problem saying I have a preference for one set of moral standards, one kind of society, over another. And no problem setting out my reasons to my fellow citizens, or asserting my claim by force, if necessary. I also have no problem listening to competing claims and changing my views if I find them compelling. Nowhere are God or absolutes involved.
I doubt we can ever escape from conflict. But it would be nice to not fight continually over the same old nonsense.
You have already claimed in effect to know what kind of universe it is! Your assumption is that it is a non-theistic universe where there is no God or absolutes involved.
I have no problem saying I have a preference for one set of moral standards, one kind of society, over another. And no problem setting out my reasons to my fellow citizens, or asserting my claim by force, if necessary. I also have no problem listening to competing claims and changing my views if I find them compelling.
Of course I know that you have preferences for certain sets of moral standards, one kind of society over another, etc. So do I. But I have a basis and a rational explanation for the existence of personal, moral obligation. You don't. The problem is that from a presupposition of a non-theistic, purely material, impersonal universe, one cannot give an accounting of volition, morality, or indeed of rationality itself. Nor can one provide any coherent, rational explantion flowing strictly from a non-theistic premise as to why one set of moral preferences is 'better' than any other. So every time you make some morally normative statement you are inconsistently borrowing from the theistic world view. That's my point.
Cordially,
Cordially,