Texas Sailor: The very fact that something as simple as a trip to the movies can have so many different opinions shows that there is no objective take on an incident, that is to say, no absolute right decision.
Me: This is non-sequitur. Moreover objective morality and relative morality are not mutually exclusive from my perspective, because I believe ultimately morality boils down to the intention behind the act. If someone in a situation had limited knowledge, and a perception, but acted according to good will, of what he perceives honestly and has the moral spirit behind the action, I would say it's objectively moral, even his action was misguided (ie. he reasoned wrong).
I would say regardless of anyone's opinion, the person in situation x with perception y, was right to act upon with z. To me total relativism means, even if a person is in situation x with perception 7, there is no right or wrong to act upon z.
So for subjectivity to have some validity, there still needs to be an objective regardless of anyone's opinion thing.
However, I would say the problem with objective morality is that it's defined in a impossible way. Morality needs perception, so it's not wrong regardless of everyone in opinion. I would say we have to make "the possible perfection vision" of a human or sentient life form or creator.
Whether it exists or not, morality would be in tune with that possible being's perception.
The human that is right with everything he sees and judges, in every situation, although most likely imaginary, it cannot be that morality contradicts his opinion to be objective. So I feel objective morality has to be redefined.
What ultimately boils down to the need of God, is the very "spirit" of "goodness". I mean spirit metaphorically, and not talking about supernatural soul. I mean the force behind the intention, which has various degrees.
Once we can agree the spirit has a basis, and we can agree on "good will" in general towards others, a lot of morals can be derived from reason and logic, and they would be correct.
Me: This is non-sequitur. Moreover objective morality and relative morality are not mutually exclusive from my perspective, because I believe ultimately morality boils down to the intention behind the act. If someone in a situation had limited knowledge, and a perception, but acted according to good will, of what he perceives honestly and has the moral spirit behind the action, I would say it's objectively moral, even his action was misguided (ie. he reasoned wrong).
I would say regardless of anyone's opinion, the person in situation x with perception y, was right to act upon with z. To me total relativism means, even if a person is in situation x with perception 7, there is no right or wrong to act upon z.
So for subjectivity to have some validity, there still needs to be an objective regardless of anyone's opinion thing.
However, I would say the problem with objective morality is that it's defined in a impossible way. Morality needs perception, so it's not wrong regardless of everyone in opinion. I would say we have to make "the possible perfection vision" of a human or sentient life form or creator.
Whether it exists or not, morality would be in tune with that possible being's perception.
The human that is right with everything he sees and judges, in every situation, although most likely imaginary, it cannot be that morality contradicts his opinion to be objective. So I feel objective morality has to be redefined.
What ultimately boils down to the need of God, is the very "spirit" of "goodness". I mean spirit metaphorically, and not talking about supernatural soul. I mean the force behind the intention, which has various degrees.
Once we can agree the spirit has a basis, and we can agree on "good will" in general towards others, a lot of morals can be derived from reason and logic, and they would be correct.
