(October 7, 2018 at 4:03 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(October 7, 2018 at 3:40 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok.... so you make it sounds here, like it is a matter of personal preference. One person thinks that they ought to beat and abuse the slave; another thinks that they should care for and help the them. These are no better or worse outside of a persons personal preference and their own abstract definition and rules? One isn't any more moral than the other? If one think that by brutally enslaving a group of people, it is the most pragmatic way to advance the well being of society, then is that moral?
Well, humans are rule makers and tend to prefer general rules as opposed to lots of special cases. That implies we will prefer those systems, in the long run, based on fairness. We are also a social species, so we tend to prefer systems tending to compassion.
But yes, if you could get everyone to agree on a position, that position becomes moral. Since most people are basically decent, you won't get wife beaters or murderers being moral based on this.
This is also why morality changes over time.
So then you can’t judge/compare morality, based on a different basis? You really have no grounding to make moral judgement on another.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther