"In the first place this is an argument from adverse consequences, which is a fallacy."

And the argument from adverse consequences fallacy is in and of itself a argument from authority fallacy.

Do you really want to challenge me on the fact that logical positivism is as self contradictory as the statement that the only thing morally true for everybody is that nothing is morally true for everybody (which is what you are arguing)?

"How would you establish that you had an objectively moral principle?"

By experiment, of course. The same way we have for 2000 years.

I think I've said enough here for now.

How would you establish that you had an objectively moral principle?

I think the investment portion of Pascal's wager's the biggest flaw in the wager. It assumes that the investment is small. And it really isn't. It would, to be a credible commitment to the wager, involve lots of time, money, and perhaps cost one lots of pleasure, as well as family and friends who might run afoul religious doctrine. For an atheist the investment looks incredibly large, because the evidence for gods simply isn't compelling. So to waste time on the considerable investment of time and money, and perhaps fractured relationships, and other pleasures denied it isn't worth it.

There are other problems besides this and wrote about them here a few years ago. http://maxiitheblindwatchmaker.blogspot.com/2009/10/pascals-wager-argument-that-should.html

In the first place this is an argument from adverse consequences, which is a fallacy. Morality is subjective or objective and the fact that one such situation might lead to greater or lesser tyranny, or relativism has absolutely no affect on the outcome of the hypotheses in question. Also, any thing that leads naturally to both tyranny and relativism (which might be increased freedom, so the very opposite) may not represent a very concrete predictor of outcomes. This seems rather like an astrology prediction doesn't it though?

In the second place you have no evidence of the assertion: Subjective morality leads to tyranny, or to relativism. Nor do account for what happens in the state of "objective morality." What I notice, and what history suggests is that people who think they have an objective morality, vouchsafed by their deity behave no better and often far worse than people who are less sure they have the right answer to every moral question.

Whence "objective morality" anyway? Theists on this website often claim to possess access to this objective morality, but they don't demonstrate how this claim might be demonstrated. Objective morality among theists seems, chiefly to consist of capitalizing alleged virtues and appealing to the dubious authority of alleged beings, or the interpretations of the alleged words of those beings.

"When morality is objective, is it accepted by everybody?"

No, but we have a word for people who don't accept objective truth: insane.

"How do you think your objective morality ought to be imposed?"

The way it used to be, by shame.

When morality is subjective, all moralities are rejected by somebody.

So what? When morality is objective, is it accepted by everybody?

Which leaves that morality which can be imposed by gun and law, to be the supreme morality, and no other.

How do you think your objective morality ought to be imposed?

I am not sure what your point is, although a 9-hour family trip listening to a CD about relativism certainly sounds like a blast!

My point is that, as I read your message (and I may have misunderstood you), you seemed to deny the right of religious freedom as put forward in Dignitatis Humanae. People have a right to pursue their understanding of ultimate truth without coercion. And of course there is Nostra Aetate, in which the Church expresses its respect for other world religions.

So I don't know what you mean by, "Pluralism is an experiment that failed." It seems to me that the Catholic Church acknowledges and respects the right of every individual, and of every religion, to seek truth sincerely. It does so, of course, while maintaining it has the fullness of truth, but it respects the right of everyone to seek the truth with freedom and without coercion.

I am not sure why there is a fuss about relativism. It seems to me that basically nobody is a moral relativist. It is competing views of morality that present problems, not people advocating no morality or any old morality as equivalent to any other morality. I think a lot of people were rather baffled by the idea of "the dictatorship of relativism." I can't imagine what it could possibly mean. It would be something like "the tyranny of anarchy." It doesn't make any sense to me.

Kid, singular. I kept pausing it to ask him how he'd deal with things, like the example of a male classmate coming back next year as a female. He agreed that would be child abuse.