RE: Can somebody give me a good argument in favor of objective morality?
March 14, 2018 at 5:33 pm
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2018 at 5:35 pm by Shell B.)
Nothing is that simple, Khem.
Nope. Murder wouldn't fit the criteria. It's not always bad or always good or always in the gray area. It's . . . subjective.
Actually, it has to be good or bad for everyone for it to be completely objective. Think about the root of the word subjective. The rapist is someone involved, and he's morally okay with it. It's "good" for him. Take that even further and let's suppose someone got pregnant from a rape and grew to love the ever-living shit out of that baby. She wouldn't change what happened for anything. Then, is it objectively bad or only subjectively bad?
Yes, atomic waste would be the thing I would find actually fit the objective morality thing, and that's only if it was to affect living organisms in any way. Say you tossed nuclear waste onto a dead planet, it would no longer be a bad or good thing. It'd be neutral. It's not necessarily "good" for the nuclear waster, as there are safer ways they can get rid of the waste. We could get really nitpicky and talk about the costs of it and the effect it would have on employees, but then I'd just wind up concluding that I can't think of a damn thing that is objectively immoral. I should add that I've said in the past that I think some thing are just fucking bad, but if I really want to get to the bones of it, I'm wrong.
Anyhoo, I said I wasn't going to get into this same debate on this forum again because it comes up every week, so I'm off. Think what you think, man. I don't even really think it matters if there are objective morals.
Nope. Murder wouldn't fit the criteria. It's not always bad or always good or always in the gray area. It's . . . subjective.
Actually, it has to be good or bad for everyone for it to be completely objective. Think about the root of the word subjective. The rapist is someone involved, and he's morally okay with it. It's "good" for him. Take that even further and let's suppose someone got pregnant from a rape and grew to love the ever-living shit out of that baby. She wouldn't change what happened for anything. Then, is it objectively bad or only subjectively bad?
Yes, atomic waste would be the thing I would find actually fit the objective morality thing, and that's only if it was to affect living organisms in any way. Say you tossed nuclear waste onto a dead planet, it would no longer be a bad or good thing. It'd be neutral. It's not necessarily "good" for the nuclear waster, as there are safer ways they can get rid of the waste. We could get really nitpicky and talk about the costs of it and the effect it would have on employees, but then I'd just wind up concluding that I can't think of a damn thing that is objectively immoral. I should add that I've said in the past that I think some thing are just fucking bad, but if I really want to get to the bones of it, I'm wrong.
Anyhoo, I said I wasn't going to get into this same debate on this forum again because it comes up every week, so I'm off. Think what you think, man. I don't even really think it matters if there are objective morals.
