Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
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.
Kevyn wrote:
Morality is obviously objective. 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.
I think you meant subjective....
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I think you meant subjective....
You are right, I didn’t have my cup of coffee yet, thanks. Fixed it.
Kevyn wrote:
Morality is obviously objective. 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.
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 truths objective or are they subjective"?
"If morality is subjective (and thus relative to society), then there is really nothing wrong with slavery. But that’s nuts! Slavery 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.
ACP45 wrote:
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 truths objective or are they subjective"?
"If morality is subjective (and thus relative to society), then there is really nothing wrong with slavery. But that’s nuts! Slavery 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.
Kevyn, br It should be obvious that CD's cartoon i... (
show quote)
Just to weigh in.... I don't find slavery morally wrong... It's an institution that serves a function...
I do find certain forms of slavery distasteful...
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Just to weigh in.... I don't find slavery morally wrong... It's an institution that serves a function...
I do find certain forms of slavery distasteful...
Just what function does slavery serve? What gives one person the right to own and control another person? What forms of slavery do you find acceptable, which ones are unacceptable, and why the distinction?
ACP45 wrote:
Just what function does slavery serve? What gives one person the right to own and control another person? What forms of slavery do you find acceptable, which ones are unacceptable, and why the distinction?
Fair questions...
1. Slavery 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 slavery... As is penal slavery...
Slavery based on race, nationality, sex, religion, or forced slavery of non criminals is unacceptable...
The distinction should be quite obvious...
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Fair questions...
1. Slavery 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 slavery... As is penal slavery...
Slavery based on race, nationality, sex, religion, or forced slavery of non criminals is unacceptable...
The distinction should be quite obvious...
Fair questions... br br 1. Slavery is a mechanism... (
show quote)
Thanks for the response. Let me think on that.
maximus
Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
ACP45 wrote:
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 truths objective or are they subjective"?
"If morality is subjective (and thus relative to society), then there is really nothing wrong with slavery. But that’s nuts! Slavery 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.
Kevyn, br It should be obvious that CD's cartoon i... (
show quote)
We shouldn't confuse Kevyn with logic.
LOL great rebuttal!
Kevyn wrote:
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.
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!
Kevyn wrote:
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.
So what is it? Objective or subjective ? My conclusion, your post is rejective
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.