morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Catholic_Lady]

To be clear,  understand some things are worse than others and some things are a grey area. That's not what I was saying.

 
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

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.

[Aroura]

[Edwardo Piet]

Great story Aroura

Also:

[...]
"The crucial point is that you can do so without feeling offended or insulted, because these people are simply being themselves. It is their nature to be critical and judgemental, so it would be absurd for us to take offense. It would be pointless for us to get angry.
[...]

My bold.

Honesty is a gift we can give to others. It is also a source of power and an engine of simplicity. Knowing that we will attempt to tell the truth, whatever the circumstances, leaves us with little to prepare for. We can simply be ourselves.

My bold.

Not quite related... but still.

My username on Steam is also "simplybeourselves".... and my username on MafiaScum is WeCanSimplyBeOurselves. People call me WCSBO or simply "Simply", over there.

Hehe. Meaningless coincidences but fun nevertheless.

I do tend to feel especially semi-enlightened today.

---

To be clear,  understand some things are worse than others and some things are a grey area. That's not what I was saying.

 
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

Not true. Morals have objective grey areas... which means they're not absolute. But black and white are objectively on the same spectrum... the greys are objectively all in between.

If black=bad and white=good (to be a massive, massive racist for a second, lol) then the greatest possible misery for everyone=black... the greatest possible happiness for everyone=white.... and the greys are everything in-between.

Absolute morality would be to pretend there was nothing in between. Like there was black and white but no greys and there was heaven and hell but no Earth... that would be insane lol.

---

 
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

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.

I agree with all of this.

[downbeatplumb]

now youre getting it.

[Aroura]

 
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

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?

[Edwardo Piet]

If it's not objectively wrong... is it wrong at all?

[Catholic_Lady]

[Edwardo Piet]

Hehe...CL: does that mean that if you stopped believing in free will then you'd start believing that all criminals were insane because they had no control over their crimes?

[Aroura]

If it's not objectively wrong... is it wrong at all?

Only if the society in which it takes place agrees that it is.  

[Catholic_Lady]

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.