RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 13, 2017 at 10:52 am
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2017 at 11:01 am by Inkfeather132.)
(July 13, 2017 at 10:40 am)Khemikal Wrote: I've opined on this in thread, but I strongly suspect that your idea of what an objective morality is has been colored by centuries of christer bullshit. An objective morality -must- take into account competing moral facts of a matter. Grey areas.
Theft is wrong, in my hypothetical objective morality, because it causes harm. Theft when starving still causes harm, but the harm caused by the theft of a loaf of bread is objectively lesser than the harm caused by starvation. In a field of suboptimal choices - steal a loaf of bread or starve my family, one seeks to choose the option of lesser harm. The least harmful, among sub-optimal decisions. Just because there is an objective moral standard..doesn;t mean that we will always have choices congruent with it's adherence.
Note that in the hypothetical, both examples of theft are still wrong, but without a reference to conflicting objective moral facts of a matter..we would be at a loss to explain why we considered one less shitty than the other - and any morality than flaty requires no theft ever for any reason is a morality that, itself, becomes the cause of harm. The thief, for his part, will still be punished for his theft..but only insomuch as he has lived to -be- punished for it.
You're conflating moral absolutism, with moral objectivism...just as Steve has, repeatedly, in every "timeless and unchanging" line of tripe.
Ok, so you're saying morality involves two parts: Objective/subjective and absolute/relative? What you are describing is an objective (naturally right/wrong) and relative (changing depending on circumstance) morality. I might be starting to get it finally.
But you are also saying that the different circumstances doesn't make the deed "not wrong", just "less wrong"?
