(October 11, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Mr.Obvious Wrote: Pool, if we were to say 'rape is subjectively bad', what would it lose in strength?
Whether we deem something bad or good is based on the value we give to it.
And just about everybody deems rape bad, in our cultures. Anyone raped surely deem it bad, in their experience.
What would some underlying core 'truth' beyond human understanding matter if we deem it wrong and judge, condone and punish it out of our viewpoint that it is 'bad'?
If our understanding leads our subjective minds to concider it wrong, the hypothetical standard beyond our understanding that we can't 'know' doesn't matter because we still think its wrong.
Concider it like this: What if there was an objective moral standard and it turned out that according to that objective morality rape would be fine, as creeded by the hypothetical God that embodies that morality and 'perfection'. Would you then start raping? I'd have trouble with that, because I would subjectively still think rape is wrong.
Good point.
This reminds me of another debate of nature vs nurture. There seems to be a lot of similarities with the two. Nature vs nurture as in something that is inane vs something that is learned, objective morality vs subjective morality seems to have a lot in common with it. Personally, I'm a more of a nature person in the nature vs nurture debate, in the sense that we are all born with a certain basic in-built behavior and we build up on it making it many times more complex with the help of nurture.
My thoughts are similar with the objective vs subjective debate. We are all born with a kind of basic moral code but we build up on it and make it more complex with the intervention of other people. Everyone will have at least one person that they consider is objectively bad or objectively good
