We decide that

No

Morality isnt independent of humans

@Sentient23 My question is what I should I say to those who do not necessarily use pornography, but who make a living off of it

I disagree. I'm a catholic, catholicism makes obvious assertions that moral absolutism is correct. I don't think that just because our perspectives on what's right and what's wrong wary, somehow means its subjective

@Sentient23 lol congrats you read james rachels

@Ater Votum If we agree that pornography is immoral, then promoting it is i would say even more immoral, since its making people indulge into more immoral things

I don't know who that is

He used the exact example u gave about the earth

Yes because its the most obvious example

But that's not a good example

Why?

Because that's a fact

It's not debatable

Morality is

No

Yes

You're missing the point of the example

let me explain

It's not the same statement

You dont need to

I understand that just because two people disagree doesnt mean that there is no truth

But I'm saying that your example is shit

thats part of the argument

let me explain

and ur explanation is garbage lol

How

"You cant derive that there is no objective truth from the mere fact that there is disagreement"

But also funny coincidence how everyhing that I believe in is objective

The point of the example is if your criteria for what's an objective fact, is that it must be believed by all humans, since if the perspectives on the issue wary, it means its subjective, then the earth being round is not a fact, since flat earthers do exist.

So
1. If the criteria by which you decide what's objective is that the perspectives on the issue MUST NOT WARY, then if the perspectives on something wary, it means its not objective
2. The perspectives on the earth being round do wary
3. Therefore, if we were to adopt this criteria, the logical consequence (absurdity) WOULD BE saying that the earth being round is subjective

That's what I said

And I dont disagree with that

I'm explaining why the example is perfect

I'm just saying that it's not a good example

Yes well your explanation as to why its not a good example is wrong lol

As just demonstrated

its a perfect example

It doesnt defend your position on morality at all

Because it's not about morality

It's not even debatable

It does because it demonstrates that if the criteria by which you judge whats objective, is whether perspectives warying is absent, then the earth being round is not a fact