My views on objective morality

[robvalue]

133 pages!? If we can get it to 1337 that would be so...

One of my many problems with all this is that if you just call a particular act immoral before you've heard any of the details, it's a meaningless judgement. And it's still a judgement, of course. Saying it's god's opinion doesn't stop it being a judgement. If I disagree with god's opinion on a personal value judgement, that doesn't make me wrong. It's like saying my favourite colour is red, but gods is blue, so I'm wrong. I'm only wrong if we've both agreed what the criteria are for the judgement, or agreed on an objective way of measuring.

If I say "this rape was immoral" before I've heard the circumstances, all I'm saying is that it "hurt" the person who got raped. In our culture, that's a fair conclusion. But if morality is simply about measuring consequences, it's pointless. We know what the consequences are. No one is argueing about what actually happened. The consequences are objective. But we don't need another way of describing the same thing.

And just because we might not be able to imagine a culture where rape could be anything other than "wrong", it doesn't mean it's impossible.