athrock Wrote:Mister Agenda Wrote:I tend to think there is objective but not universal morality, although the larger portion of morality is culturally and personally subjective and a fair amount is arbitrary, I don't think we can construct a scenario where it is morally okay to use human infants as hockey pucks for fun. That said, an ultimate perfect morality is not necessary to make moral judgments. We don't need a perfect standard for being long to tell one thing is longer than another/ and we don't need a perfect standard of right to tell one thing is righter than another.
Isn't "objective" morality "universal" by definition?
No. For instance, we accept that moral issues only apply to beings capable of moral agency. If a cat eats one of her own litter, she isn't disobeying any moral law because moral laws don't apply to her; she can only act as she's evolved and learned to act.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Universal: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.
Different words with different meanings.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.