See the thing is that the ad populum argument, while a fallacy, is pretty much the closest thing you can get to any sort of "objective" morality. Objective morality, however, does not exist, so the entire argument itself ends up as a fallacy regardless. Even religious books, which claim an objective morality through an unknown entity that enforces these laws, don't actually provide an objective morality. They only provide the subjective morality of those who wrote the book. Discarding any claims that such religious books are supposedly holy and absolute, there is no way to prove that this is so, it is simply claimed, and simply claiming is not enough to actually provide morality. If it is objective morality you seek, you must provide evidence for why what is what, and utilizing something that can be neither proven nor disproven is not evidence...it is a claim, and a claim without evidence. Therefore, morality must be rendered into subjective terms.
Now, when you ask why I think I am morally correct in opposing adulterers being stoned to death, it is because it is a simple matter of why the cause must have that affect. Having sex with someone else outside of a marriage that these unprovable entities claim to be objectively sancrosanct without providing any evidence as to why that is harms who, exactly? I would like to know what the harm is, and why death must be prescribed. If you cannot [and you must provide solid evidence, something that can be tested here, because this is a human life we are talking about], then your right to claim that an adulterer must be stoned to death is hollow and baseless. Thus the argument becomes one of "I think they should be killed!" and me saying "I think they shouldn't!" We are at a subjective point. I think they should not be killed because the harm done was not one of the termination of a life.
Say I cheat on my wife. Obviously I hurt her by being dishonest. To me, a more fitting punishment would be my wife gets to fuck someone else in turn. Equal punishment, eye for an eye kind of thing. Now, eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind as they say, but the act is still justified. If she chooses not to, she can simply forgive me [which humans have the capacity to do, by the way]. Or, if she cannot forgive me, she can divorce me and find someone who will be honest, and my punishment is being single, divorced, and what with marital laws and all, missing 50% of my stuff because I caused the problem that led to the divorce. Unless we signed a pre-nup. Still, I would be single, and likely my reputation damaged as well. Pretty fitting punishments for the crime.
But killing someone because they cheated on someone is like if you spat in my face, and I shot you in the face with a Beretta. This is an escalation that is uncontrolled, brutish, savage, and born of an irrational, emotional outburst where I did not think, I just acted. And as modern society has been learning, thinking before acting is far more beneficial not just to you but to others as well. Therefore, it is good, because the more level response is more beneficial all around than the primitive, chest-beating response that our species no longer really needs to display.
Now, when you ask why I think I am morally correct in opposing adulterers being stoned to death, it is because it is a simple matter of why the cause must have that affect. Having sex with someone else outside of a marriage that these unprovable entities claim to be objectively sancrosanct without providing any evidence as to why that is harms who, exactly? I would like to know what the harm is, and why death must be prescribed. If you cannot [and you must provide solid evidence, something that can be tested here, because this is a human life we are talking about], then your right to claim that an adulterer must be stoned to death is hollow and baseless. Thus the argument becomes one of "I think they should be killed!" and me saying "I think they shouldn't!" We are at a subjective point. I think they should not be killed because the harm done was not one of the termination of a life.
Say I cheat on my wife. Obviously I hurt her by being dishonest. To me, a more fitting punishment would be my wife gets to fuck someone else in turn. Equal punishment, eye for an eye kind of thing. Now, eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind as they say, but the act is still justified. If she chooses not to, she can simply forgive me [which humans have the capacity to do, by the way]. Or, if she cannot forgive me, she can divorce me and find someone who will be honest, and my punishment is being single, divorced, and what with marital laws and all, missing 50% of my stuff because I caused the problem that led to the divorce. Unless we signed a pre-nup. Still, I would be single, and likely my reputation damaged as well. Pretty fitting punishments for the crime.
But killing someone because they cheated on someone is like if you spat in my face, and I shot you in the face with a Beretta. This is an escalation that is uncontrolled, brutish, savage, and born of an irrational, emotional outburst where I did not think, I just acted. And as modern society has been learning, thinking before acting is far more beneficial not just to you but to others as well. Therefore, it is good, because the more level response is more beneficial all around than the primitive, chest-beating response that our species no longer really needs to display.
