(May 15, 2017 at 4:40 pm)Aroura Wrote:(May 15, 2017 at 4:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: By that, I just mean they are dependent on circumstances, but that they are still objective within those circumstances.
Example:
The morality of yelling at someone is a grey area.
It is objectively wrong to yell at a random person simply because you are having a bad day and need someone to take your anger out on, even though the person has nothing to do with why you are upset.
It is objectively not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child.
Here is the problem, you and I and 99% of people might agree right now, today, that it is wrong to yell at a random person because you are having a bad day (again, my sincerest apologies about that), but that does not make it objectively wrong.
Under some circumstance, at some point in history, I'm sure that most people would have agreed it was acceptable.
For instance, what if the person yelling at you has autism? Like severe autism, but they are still an adult.
Would you still call it objectively wrong for them to yell at a stranger because they are upset? Or is it suddenly more understandable, and therefore more acceptable, with that one little change?
If the person yelling at an innocent bystander has some kind of mental illness, I would say the act of yelling is still objectively wrong, but the yeller's culpability is lessened (if not entirely gone) due to his mental illness.
"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