(October 11, 2021 at 5:06 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The kid either was or wasn't harmed, either did or didn't lose blood, either did or didn't lose teeth, either does or doesn't have broken bones, ayost. That's exactly what objectivity is.
No, just because a thing is objectively true doesn't mean that a person couldn't get it wrong. I might ask you what the answer to 1+1+1 is..and you might say 1..for example. It's objectively true that much of what you've posted about your own religion is false - and I see you're still here asserting otherwise. If gods morality were objectively true..it really wouldn't matter whether you got it wrong, either..would it?
Charitably speaking, moral realism suggests that a great deal of the time that people are in moral error, it's because they're misinformed of relevant facts, or lack relevant facts. Uncharitably, that people are well appraised of the moral facts of a matter, accept those facts, and still feel compelled to do whatever bad thing they've cooked up. So, you see, I don't need you to agree with me anymore than an elementary math teacher needs you to agree with her, or god needs you to agree with him. People disagree about facts all the time.
Ok, so his physical body was objectively injured. Broken nose, lost some teeth, lost some blood. That makes that immoral.
By that standard, a plastic surgeon performing a rhinoplasty and full mouth dental implants is immoral. Broken nose, lost some teeth, lost some blood. It's what it objectively is.
Also who's to say that objective bodily injury is immoral? Is sex where they inflict pain on each other immoral? Is MMA immoral? Is rugby immoral? It's what it objectively is.
And once again, you assume facts is a concept that even exists in the world, but really its just how your brain fizzes when it gets outside stimuli.