RE: Morality
June 15, 2013 at 3:02 am
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2013 at 3:07 am by crud.)
@Max.
I'm not denying a subjective side of life exist.
sure we'll all pick different cars based on purely personal prefence color/shape ect.
But there is nothing religious at all about saying that we can judge the quality of the car speed/reliability/safety/efficiency ect by an absolute standard, which is; the laws of physics...
I don't know how this is the "religious approach", sounds more like the scientific approach to me.
^ that's kind of besides the point though, you're surely not denying that objective truth can exist?
..So you are just saying that all morality is relative? - that's fair. but I can't see how it's different from moral nihlism. And I don't see how we can deem the actions of anyone eles as wrong? if this is the case
side note - Sam Harris fights hard to try and say that morality can still be objective within naturalism.
" the entire concept of an absolute morality is, in and of itself both impossible (and actually probably immoral as a concept)"
Under moral relativism, a statement like this is absurd.... you first say morality is nothing more than subjective opinion, but then go on to use the word "immoral" like it actually has meaning
I'm not denying a subjective side of life exist.
sure we'll all pick different cars based on purely personal prefence color/shape ect.
But there is nothing religious at all about saying that we can judge the quality of the car speed/reliability/safety/efficiency ect by an absolute standard, which is; the laws of physics...
I don't know how this is the "religious approach", sounds more like the scientific approach to me.
^ that's kind of besides the point though, you're surely not denying that objective truth can exist?
..So you are just saying that all morality is relative? - that's fair. but I can't see how it's different from moral nihlism. And I don't see how we can deem the actions of anyone eles as wrong? if this is the case
side note - Sam Harris fights hard to try and say that morality can still be objective within naturalism.
" the entire concept of an absolute morality is, in and of itself both impossible (and actually probably immoral as a concept)"
Under moral relativism, a statement like this is absurd.... you first say morality is nothing more than subjective opinion, but then go on to use the word "immoral" like it actually has meaning
