(July 16, 2017 at 2:50 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(July 16, 2017 at 2:40 pm)JackRussell Wrote: Some people like harm, it can be consensual. Personally I don't get it but, well...
Again one can make a subjective moral decision and then assess a morally objective action.
If I like having my balls nailed to a plank of wood, that may cause harm, even irreparable, but is it wrong?
I don't think it would be a good thing for me, but another person can validly disagree.
It causes no harm to others. It is against wellbeing, but affords the person pleasure at no apparent cost to another.
Morality is difficult, subjective but not without moral actions being objectively defined.
If there was an absolute moral objectivity, one could not explain sociopaths or psychopaths. Evolutionary speaking these extremes are rather trivial.
NO GODS REQUIRED
Morals are certainly not absolute. Slavery was once considered moral, but not to the slaves themselves. Women in the west would not consider being forced to dress in a tent moral, but the men in Afghanistan do consider it moral.
But our artificial constructs we create as humans, still do not change our species evolutionary reaction to harm to ourselves as individuals. If you are forced against your consent or physically harmed against your consent, you will react to it, either by flight or fight.
I think viewing human behavior in natural terms will be a far better guide than old mythology. It would be a secular version of the "golden rule" but with a slight twist, "Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself."
I agree, If I misspoke I apologise.
I think morality and ethics are situational. I do not accept moral absolutes.
I am happy however to consider decisions on moral actions as absolutely right or wrong. It is the action that is judged, not an overarching idea of morality.
