Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Kevyn

Morality is obviously subjective. Stealing is wrong but to steal food to feed a starving child acceptable in most people’s minds. Failure to understand that morality is objective doesn’t make one a bad person, but it certainly shows they aren’t too bright.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I think you meant subjective....

Rose42

Sums it up well.

Kevyn

You are right, I didn’t have my cup of coffee yet, thanks. Fixed it.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Kevyn,
It should be obvious that CD's cartoon is more than just whether morality is objective or subjective.

But on that subject, "are moral t***hs objective or are they subjective"?

"If morality is subjective (and thus relative to society), then there is really nothing wrong with s***ery. But that’s nuts! S***ery is obviously wrong (and objectively so!). Therefore, it follows by logic alone that morality is not subjective. It gets us to see quite quickly that the pervasive intuition that many have – that morality is not objective – is clearly false."

Secondly, "if morality is subjective, then no two people could ever really disagree about a particular moral issue". You may think Chocolate is better than Vanilla, and I may think otherwise. That is subjective and untenable in a society that is based upon moral principals.

A similar conflict in viewpoints exist in the legal community on the issue of Legal Positivism vs. Natural Law.
Should a society's set of laws in that system depend on what social standards its officials recognize as authoritative; for example, legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or social customs? In other words, law is a matter of what has been posited (ordered, decided, practiced, tolerated, etc.) by society's standard of the day. Or, is there such a thing as Natural Law, i.e. A body of principles that are considered to be inherent in nature and have universal application in determining whether human conduct is right or wrong?

From my point of view, morality is objective and based upon the ethical principals of Natural Law.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Just to weigh in.... I don't find s***ery morally wrong... It's an institution that serves a function...

I do find certain forms of s***ery distasteful...

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Just what function does s***ery serve? What gives one person the right to own and control another person? What forms of s***ery do you find acceptable, which ones are unacceptable, and why the distinction?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Fair questions...

1. S***ery is a mechanism that ensures members of society without options can find work and be cared for... It also gives society a way to provide restitution to injured parties when the perpetrator lacks the means for compensation....

2. Power...Power gives people the right to own and control others... Don't believe me??? Stop paying taxes or following traffic laws..

3. Indentured servitude is an acceptable form of s***ery... As is penal s***ery...
S***ery based on race, nationality, sex, religion, or forced s***ery of non criminals is unacceptable...
The distinction should be quite obvious...

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Thanks for the response. Let me think on that.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

We shouldn't confuse Kevyn with logic.


LOL great rebuttal!

Wonttakeitanymore

Not to steal what u can sell on Amazon! Never acceptable! Most people can get food from churches and food stamps! You are totally zombified!

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

So what is it? Objective or subjective ? My conclusion, your post is rejective