durangodawood
Dis Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 23,602
- 15,761
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
It sounds like you deny there we hold moral principles at all and instead analyze every real life situation from-scratch, so to speak.I suspect we are talking past each other a bit concerning morals vs morals and other considerations. Here is how I see it; morality is judgment we make about actions we experience.
If I see a person killing another, it is easy to say “killing is wrong” and deem the act immoral, and leave it a that. But then the question becomes; why did he kill that person? Did he kill a person who broke into his house to attack his family? How about if he was invited to the house, a fight ensued, and the home owner felt his life was in danger and killed the guest? How about if he wasn’t inside the home, but was on his property threatening to kill him? Where do you draw the line?
In the real world, most moral issues aren’t as cut and dry as killing is wrong, because there are other considerations that must be taken into account before judging the act good or bad, those considerations must be addressed BEFORE judging. Therefore you can’t claim killing as always wrong, because you gotta admit there are cases when killing is right.
Objective means based on observable and measurable facts
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
and facts can be demonstrated as true. If killing were objectively wrong, that would mean it is wrong in spite of those other considerations associated with the killing. It would also mean it could be demonstrated as wrong in all cases.
I know you are going to disagree, so tell me where I’ve gone wrong here.
Is that your position on this?
Upvote
0