(June 20, 2015 at 6:57 pm)abaris Wrote:(June 20, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So if you are talking about a group of people who thought burning rape victims and enslaving people was moral, and you say that they were wrong for thinking it's moral, you are then agreeing that those things are objectively immoral, correct?
No, I'm arguing for moral relativity. I'm appalled by these actions, but if I had lived in their time and their region I most certainly would have been OK with it. Everyone is a result of their upbringing.
I probably would have been ok with it too. But that's not the point.
You said they didn't know any better and they are wrong, for consideirng these things to be moral. This suggests that you believe in a right way. A right morality.
This is exactly what I mean by objective morality. It means things like enslavement and burning rape victims are immoral acts, period. And if anyone thinks they are moral, those people are "wrong", and they "don't know any better." Just like you said.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
