RE: Objective morality
April 24, 2012 at 1:52 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2012 at 1:55 am by genkaus.)
(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Objective morality is not effected by view points. It is not dependent on people, it exist because there is One who can judge and enforce it, because the One is absolutely moral and because that morality is who the One is.
Bullshit. Objective morality - in order to be objective - must not be affected by that "One" either, otherwise, it won't be objective. Further, there is no constraint on objective morality to be absolute as well
(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Yes that's what many do, however this makes morality subjective, and subjective morality taken to it's limit would be a disaster, everyone would live by his/her own morality, chaos, the downfall of civilization.
Unless, ofcourse, they can find certain common grounds in interests of co-existence which form the social morality, which allows everyone to practice their own morality. Hey, guess what, that's what we are doing right now.
(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Again objective morality does not depend on people or what they believe, it is a standard that is set because of who the One is. Varied perception of morality is subjective morality and will result in an unfairness for some and an advantage for others, the more powerful will set moralit for a given population.
Wrong - objective morality wouldn't be objective if it is being set by anyone, even the One. And wrong - your delusions to the contrary - there can be basic, rational morals on which everyone can agree on as the basis of society.
(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: They can't and that is what's absolutely wrong with subjective morality, but when you have a society run by man and all his flaws and you kick out the only One who is objectively moral at some point the society will fail, I can prove that statement too.
Actually, the society which depended upon the One for morality is a society made for failure. Once you get that one out of the way, you can actually come up with over-arching moral code based on reality and nature of moral agents, which would be acceptable to any rational person.
(April 24, 2012 at 12:56 am)BrotherMagnet Wrote: The way I see it: It is always immoral to take a life, but it may still be necessary to stop the base rule from being broken. If necessary is how you define just than I completely agree.
I never agree to blanket moral commandments like these. Morality is contextual - different principles are applicable in different situations. In some cases it may be immoral to take a life, in others it may be the most moral thing to do.