(December 3, 2015 at 12:55 pm)DespondentFishdeathMasochismo Wrote:(December 3, 2015 at 12:52 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Whether or not your brother is correct could depend on what he means by good leader. When he says good does he mean effective? Few would argue that Qin Shi Huang or Genghis Khan weren't effective leaders, but I doubt many would argue they would meet today's standard for a moral person. The same type of case could be made for Putin. Morality aside one could argue that he has been an effective leader. Someone could counter that argument with decisions made by Putin have influenced the current shitty state of the Russian economy.Today's standards of a moral person? You seem to be implying that morality is subjective to the cultural standard of morality. Morality is objective, based on how fair the standards are for treating others. This is one of the things that religious people will say, which is morality is cultural. It's not.
Way to miss my point about what does he mean by good, effective or moral, and drill down into a philosophical question that's been argued for centuries.
Having said that historically societal morality has and will hopefully continue to evolve over time. Theists are usually the ones arguing objective morality with the line separating moral from immoral dictated by some deity or another.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.