(July 13, 2017 at 10:29 am)Khemikal Wrote: Being subject to circumstance isn't an impediment to an objective morality, unless that circumstance is the moral subject in question. For example....the theft of a loaf of bread is not more or less wrong because of who does it, but because of the circumstance in which that subject finds themselves and it's relationship to the object, the moral fact of the matter.
Nevertheless, some things are considered to be so beyond the pale of circumstance, that there is no moral amelioration for that act, due to the nature of -the act-...which is the object..in an objective morality. As examples.
Man steals loaf of bread because he wants it. Flatly wrong.
Man steals loaf of bread because he is starving. Still wrong, but less wrong.
Man commits genocide Because Jews. Flatly wrong.
Man commits genocide because "god" told him to. Flatly wrong.
That still seems like subjective morality to me. The way I understand it, objective morality leaves no room for "gray areas". Which is why I don't think it can ever exist because those "gray areas" are everywhere. Is there something I'm missing here?
