Burden shift much? It makes sense to you for someone to prove something doesn’t exist? That’s what you asking me to do, to “prove” a universal morality doesn’t exist. How does one prove with evidence the non-existence of something? Of course there isn’t going to be any evidence of existence if it is nonexistent.
That’s why the burden is on the person claiming or assuming something exists because, logically, things that exist leave evidence of their existence.
It’s your burden to show the existence of a universal morality, as you assume such existence in your argument.
And of course you want to shift the burden, because you possibly sense the very difficult task of establishing the existence of a universal morality. So, better to shift the burden to the other side, but doing so doesn’t change the fact you haven’t established a universal morality exists, one in which you need for your argument, specifically the way and manner you have articulated your argument.
This is a cheap worthless dodge.
If you think doing harm to a victim is not immoral you are worthless.
This is a cheap worthless dodge.
Says the person shifting the burden.
I say for there to be immorality there must be harm and a victim and all you have to do to prove it is not a universal is to show me some immorality without harm and a victim and also prove it is immorality.
No, you are burden shifting again. You are asking me to A) Refute something you haven’t shown to exist, a universal morality parallel to laws of nature. You ASSUME “must be harm and a victim” is a universal moral necessity, but you have no evidence to support it and no reasoned argument for its existence.
Next, Phillips adheres to a moral philosophy where immoral actions include no victim and harm to another person. What’s your retort? To summarily claim, based on nothing else than your act of proclaiming, that specific moral beliefs by Phillips isn’t morality.
And in case you are oblivious to the obvious, I’m expressing incredulity towards the idea a universal moral code can be shown to exist. So, it doesn’t make any sense for to invite me to show immorality. Likely at best all I could demonstrate is what I think is immorality.
The issue underlying your argument is your god like powers of determining for others what is or isn’t morality and immorality based on nothing more than you’ve typed it. Well, there’s no shortage of people who have written on the subject matter of morality. Kant, Mills, Rawls, Bentham, Plato, Aristotle, Bentham, Nozick, Moses (or the OT writers), Paul and NT authors, authors of the Koran, Jesus, Buddha, all spoke about morality, with each assuming if not claiming they have the right, best, preferred, logical, or universal moral philosophy.
You are but one more with an opinion, and one more who treats their opinion as universal.
Your view of morality isn’t shown to be superior to anyone else’s view of morality. Oh you say it is, but saying it doesn’t make it so.
You evaluate this fact pattern through your personal lens of what is free speech, declare for others what is or isn’t free speech based on nothing more than you’ve typed it, you’ve claimed it. You augment that with your personal moral perception, declaring for others what is or isn’t morality. That’s the flaw, your argument is aptly reduced to an argument of because you say so.
Then you preach freedom, so long as the freedom is exercised in a manner you find palatable. But that isn’t freedom, and freedom includes engaging in conduct, having beliefs, that others dislike, disapprove of, despise and hate.