I never said anything goes I said all moral positions need to be included at the table of subjective morality. I think people say there is no way to determine what is truly right and wrong under subjective morality because there is no way to objectively measure morals. So under a subjective position, no one can say a particular moral position is wrong even if it's abhorrent.
Yes, of course they can say it is wrong. Look, you even spelled it out... "it's abhorrent."
People are horrified by it, by the mere though of it... and so they think it is "abhorrent", and based on that, they can say that it is "wrong".
You keep insisting on these ideas of "truly" right and wrong. There isn't. There is no "false" right or wrong, and no "true" right or wrong. There is only right or wrong... and it is humans who determine that. Determine, not detect.
Why how can some not in their right mind be able to think properly to determine morals. People who are insane are usually found not guilty due to insanity because they are incapable of rational thinking.
That is exactly how the "no true scotman" fallacy works. Asserting the sole observation that you act in a certain way means you are part of a certain group (or in that case, not part of a certain group)
You assert that "people who believe that X is not wrong are not in their right mind." Your sole determinator for that is "they don't believe that X is wrong."
You just declared everyone who disagrees with your morals as insane. Why, thank you!
But you are just wrong, factually, objectively wrong. The determination for "incapability of guilt due to insanity" is not that people are "insane". It is specifically that someone doesn't have the mental capacity (permanently or temporarily) to make this kind of moral decision. Simple disagreement with a certain moral is not enough.
It really is that simple. If you claim there are no moral truths and that people can hold any moral position and then condemn and say someone is wrong because they hold a moral position you disagree with then you are contradicting your own moral position.
Not at all. People can hold any moral position... and "condemn" someone else based on this very moral position they hold.
People make judgements based on their own positions. Certainly that is not something outrageous and unheard of. It's quite normal. It is, in fact, inevitable in this case.
I disagree. The person is only able to compromise that objective moral not to kill because a greater objective moral comes into conflict. This does not deny the objectivity of "not to kill", that still stands and doesn't open the door for the subjective moral position.
It doesn't have to "open the door for the subjective moral position"... this IS the subjective moral position.
If you defend such a "compromise", then you do that on the basis of your subjective judgement. If you deny such a "compromise"... you do the same.
There is no escape.
In my example, only self-defence is allowed because not to protect life is immoral. All other subjective views like it is OK to kill because of abortion, it is OK to kill while doing a bank robbery, it is OK to kill for fun, it is OK to kill the weak as they are a burden etc etc etc. If it was truly subjective then all those positions should also be allowed but they are not justified.
Be allowed... by whom? That is the problem that you simply keep ignoring. It is people who make judgements, people who disagree, people who "allow" things, "forbid" things, it is people, always people, no one other than people who act on something that "should" be.
In reality, objective reality... there is no "should", there is no "ought"... there is only "is".
Killing someone in self-defence is not morally good. The courts don't say that a person has done a good deed in killing someone in self-defence. The person who kills doesn't feel like it was a good thing. Look at people who kill in war they are usually traumatized. Killing in self-defence is only a justification for breaching the moral not to kill. It is not a new moral but rather a reason why it was justified to kill in that situation because there was a greater objective moral involved.
That's why it is called the "good guy with the gun", right? Instead of the "also bad guy with a gun who is excused because of the other bad guy he shot."
And I just
love how you decide what other people feel.
Yes, people in wars are often traumatized. The reasons for that can be very varied... the experience of violence itself, the experience of violence to themselves. The experience of your friends and fellows being subjected to violence.
But there are also enough people who are not traumatized by killing what they perceive as an enemy.
I guess you would say that all these are "not in their right mind"... but it is not for you to decide what kind of mind someone should have.
And let us get back to your constant example of "killing in self defense" in contrast to the examples I used... and how that relates to your "all people (in their right mind) would act that way because it is objectively moral"
I used the example of a foreign takeover of your country. I didn't mention anything about "self defense" or "protecting your family".
A foreign power invades, occupies your government, prevents you from excercising your "rights", takes away your "property". They imprison some people... even beat some people (those who are not in the right mind to see how beneficial this new regime is and how horrible your old one was)... but they are not here to kill you or anyone. They are here to help you, to free you.
Don't you think that the vast majority of people would rise up and fight against these invaders? "Red Dawn" style? The "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" folk? Those who threaten violence when their political views are not dominant?
The people who took up arms when their government was told that they couldn't simply leave and do their own stuff (which included owning people).
Do you think that the majority of citizen everywhere, of patriots... they are all insane?
OK lets put it another way. Reincarnation is where a person can come back as an animal is that correct. So is harming or killing the animal the person comes back in right or wrong.
Sorry, that is just wrong. There are widespread vegetarian views in various denomniations of both Hinduism and Buddhism... but they are not a general rule, and they are based on the respect for sentient life, not "because this could once have been a person".
But it is not even the majority of these religions that follow this strict dogma. Are all those who don't follow it "insane"?
You do not believe that people get reincarnated in animals... so are ALL who hold certain moral views because of this belief "insane"?
As far as Christians go abortion is killing and killing is objectively wrong.
But you already based your claim that this is objectively morally wrong not on "as far as Christians go"... but on "all people act in a certain way".
Definitly not all people act in this, your, way regarding abortion, and even less in regard to homosexuality.
So either your defense of your claims of "objective morality" is false... or all the people who disagree with you are "not in their right mind".
