(June 5, 2017 at 9:23 am)Khemikal Wrote:(June 5, 2017 at 8:39 am)Zenith Wrote: I was actually considering starting a new thread on morality, to explain this. I see morality as man's understanding of what's "helpful" and what is "harmful" for the community the man lives in. And I believe that there is no "abyss" between harmful and helpful in such a way that a thing could be either "helpful" or "harmful" but not both. Rather people usually try to find the thing that is most helpful and does the least harm in a specific circumstance, using the understanding and the knowledge they have available - that's morality.
Trying to declare morality as "objective", i.e. as something unchangeable, is basically forcing a solution that worked 2000 years ago onto a problem that exists in completely different circumstances, and therefore is no longer helpful.
Harmful vs helpful -is- an objective morality. Just as "more than and less than" is an objective description of two piles of money, even when the size of each pile keeps changing.
No. "Harmful" and "helpful" ARE objective, but they are NOT morality. Morality is about belief, i.e.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio...h/morality Wrote:Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong.
