RE: Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues
January 24, 2025 at 3:32 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2025 at 3:43 pm by Sheldon.)
(January 24, 2025 at 1:40 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote:Whilst I'd agree that it is immoral to cause unnecessary harm, this is a subjective claim, it is not objectively true that causing unnecessary harm is immoral, obviously. That there is a broad consensus on any moral assertion, or even were it a universal consensus, doesn't make that moral assertion objectively true.(January 3, 2025 at 3:06 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Just another disingenuous objection used as cover by a religious nut. It follows pretty cleanly from the notions that there is objective evidence for the existence of trans people and objective evidence that harming people is wrong...that harming trans people would be wrong. They don't give a shit about that, though. Their god has an opinion. Their culture has a position.
Well, morality can be objective.
If harm is detectable by anyone, then it is objective. For example, it is pretty much generally accepted that we don't want to be punched in the face because it hurts, we don't want our stuff stolen from us. <====That is pretty universal and so, it goes into the objective box.
Other decisions, such as deciding that a 16 y old (and less) can't get married since he has not reach the age of consent and so it is immoral, that goes into the subjective box.
Ultimately all moral assertions rest on subjective claims, though once we agree on a moral assertion, we can of course make objectively true claims about how to best avoid those immoral acts, or achieve moral ones. For example if we agree it is immoral to cause (I would add the word unnecessary here) harm, then it is objectively true that punching someone for no good reason is immoral, but the moral assertion that causing (unnecessary) harm is immoral is still a subjective one.