The law is objective because it is written down. Somewhere there is a book, scroll, or something real; outside of human thought that represents the law; that says “stealing is wrong”. No such scroll, book, or anything exists for morality; morality consists solely in the context of human thought.yes I agree, so in this case because the law and moral are the same does not that show how the moral for stealing is objective, if you say the law is objective. Is there ever a case where stealing will not be prosecutable by law or some rule similar to law that will have some sort of penalty like the law. Is there any situation where stealing whether by law or by morality is OK and does not result in some sort of penalty.
If you are going to claim atrocities like Hitler will only happen under subjective morality, it will be a contradiction to then turn around and claim morality is not subjective, because the atrocities of Hitler were real.Yes I agree and that's the danger of subjective morality as it allows people like Hitler to do what they do.
If right and wrong is not based on human thought, how can you know the difference between right and wrong?Just because it was OK years ago or even today does not mean it was morally right. You are assuming that just because it was acceptable it must have been ultimately right or good. I think there is also the context of that time which may add a different understanding and application of that moral. But that does not add a different moral meaning or view. Time and knowledge helps us have a better understanding.
What about the moral of getting rid of the indigenous people’s culture? What about the moral that states people of other colors should not be treated equally to white people? Those morals have changed! Those morals went from moral to immoral.For example 50 years ago people thought taking indigenous children from their family and putting them with white families was good as it helped them have a better life. Today this is seen as wrong as it was denying indigenous children the right to their parents who knew them best.
But they did not know this then and were doing what was regarded as good and in the best interest of the child. Today people will try and support the indigenous child to stay with their family in the best interest of the child. That does not change the moral of acting in the best interest of the child.
No they are not; they are claiming there is a subjective moral standard that can determine what they claim.We know they exist because a logical argument can be made for objective morality such as how people act and appeal to objective morality despite saying there is no objective morality which I have been explaining through these posts. For example as soon as someone begins to say that their morality is right and another is wrong they are acknowledging that there is an objective moral standard that can determine what they claim.
Because it does have a basis; a subjective basis.Otherwise why even make the claim as it has not basis.
So people like Sam Harris claim that nature decides what is morally justified? What does that mean? Perhaps he meant that because each person is a part of nature, each person decides for himself what is morally justified. But then that would be subjective, not objective morality.As mentioned people like Sam Harris say it is something within nature and that humans just know and have known all along. It is like the laws of physics, they have always been there and are part of life. So people intuitively know what is right and wrong. For Christians they believe in a moral lawgiver and as the bible says the laws of God are written on peoples hearts so this is similar to morals being a part of nature and people know them even if they have never seen or heard any morals before.
Thats how things happen in the real world. Under objective morality, you would break out your bible, and show him why you are right and he is wrong, and he will break out his Koran and show you why he is right and you are wrong; and in the end nobody gets anywhere because your arguments are based on faith in two different books that the other doesn’t agree with instead of reason and logic, something everybody can agree on.Yes you can express your subjective moral view and so can the terrorists. The more difficult part is going to be winning the debate about whose morals are right as you have no basis to measure whose morals are right or wrong. So in that sense you can only have a conversation to express your opinion. You maybe right or the terrorist may be right who knows.
Upvote
0