(March 12, 2016 at 8:07 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(March 12, 2016 at 1:23 pm)IATIA Wrote: That is still 'subjective' morality. The example is based on the "innocence" of the victim. "Innocent" by whose standard? Subjective.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that Catholic_Lady thinks "objective" means "super duper." She thinks killing and rape are super duper bad, and therefore objectively evil.
No. It is true that objectively immoral acts are very bad, but what it means specifically is that the act is immoral, period. It is not a matter of opinion. If someone says "oh I think rape is good", that person would be incorrect. It's different from your opinion of what the best tasting food is, for example, where there is no correct or incorrect answer, but is merely just a matter of personal opinion and taste.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh