(December 13, 2012 at 1:28 am)genkaus Wrote: No, actually, its a function of how we live. Treatment of our fellow sentient beings is just one aspect of it.
The only important aspect, I should think. We have no moral obligation to rocks or other inanimate objects. We can use terms like "wasteful" or "foolish" but you can't be cruel to rocks or other things that don't think or feel.
Quote:It'd get complicated again when I ask you to define "wronged" without the context of morality or risk being circular in your argument.Usually I invoke The Social Contract. I am honest with others because I wish them to be honest with me. I respect the rights of others because I wish them to respect my rights.
Now, we can have a debate as to what those "rights" are, who's "rights" trump who's, and whether or not lying might be justifiable in certain circumstances and this is where morality gets more "subjective".
Quote:That's the distinction you are missing. If the evaluation is based on objective facts and supported by logic - then the judgment of good or bad is no longer a subjective opinion.
What if the data wasn't so clear cut? What if the outcomes were mixed? What if one thing was gained at the price of something else? Here is where it gets subjective, that we value certain things over others.
...and we seem to agree that "GodWillsIt" is still a subjective moral code, just with judgment surrendered to another.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
