No way to objectively resolve moral disputes.
That is why I was pointing out that moral truth is moral realism in that its lived out. We cannot help but live it out and point it out. Even if someone claims there is only subjective morality they cannot help live moral truths which contradict their claims to subjective morality.
I don't. I've cast that vague belief in the bin.
So therefore if you see or hear of someone doing something horrible to a child you cannot really claim that its objectively wrong. The person doing the act can also claim its morally OK.
But I disgaree with this position if thats the case. That is why I pointed out moral realism because real lived morality is different to claims about morality.
Correct. No way to resolve moral disputes.
Wouldnt that leave any relationship, groups or society in trouble where they could not prevent people going around claiming all sorts of strange and crazy things are morally OK. Well I guess thats sort of happening now which for me seems to once again show how impracticle and self defeating subjective morality is.
No I didn't. I just acknowledge that governance over women's wombs does not fall under the purpose of government. So it's not up to society or government to decide whether she should remain pregnant or not.
It would be up to the government is it was shown that the fetus was life and human. That is why I pointed out that establishing what status the fetus has is important and relevant to morality.
The government intervenes in womens or anyones life in other ways. If a person is being destructive and at risk of harming others the law stops them. If children drink underage the law stops them and parents can be held accountable for their kids. Individual rights don't always trump other peoples rights or the wellbeing of the person.
OK, that is your belief. It is not my belief. I am not concerned for the rights of the unborn.
So let me ask you if it was discovered that the fetus was a human life and terminating it was killing a human would you be pro-life.
As I pointed out thats an inconsistent position to take and therefore not a good basis for whether a government should get involved. Governments get involved all the time on issues similar to abortion.
I don't care about your personal judgement as to the moral or immoralness of government.
I am not proposing us having a moral government. It is not a goal I support. I go the opposite. I don't want a government that is concerned about having a moral society. I just want a government that supports safety, stability and a thriving society.
I agree we cannot function as a theocracy. But I am goint to that extreme but rather pointing out that it is impossible for governments to detach morality from what they do. So we surely must be able and want to ensure the best moral position to take as a society and nation.
For example the decision to force mothers back to work while their baby involves morality. Drug testing drug addicts to determine their eligibility for welfare involves morality. Easy divorce laws involve moral values.
So what I am saying is that when the government decides to take a certain position on these situation they are inevitably taking a moral position. They are saying drug addicts don't derserve help, the family unit and motherhood has no value ect. They can pretend its all about the budget but even that is a moral position by putting money before people. Everything we do is interwoven with moral values.
I don't think it is important. But I do recognise it as a scientific fact.
So if its a scientific fact then isntcannot the science be a measure of what is right and wrong. The recent scientific discoveries have shown that the fetus feels pain and has more function than we thought that has changed many of the laws about allowing full term abortions. So the logical extention would be if further science showed that earlier stages were vital then that would change peoples moral views about abortion.
You make a point of governments not denying a womens right. That is itself a moral position. You are placing value of womens rights. Why womens rights, why human rights. Thats because human life is of value. Why is human life of value. Some say because it denies a full and free life. But why is that of value.
Some say it harms women/humans. But why is human harm of value. So why isnt the fetus of value. Why should womens lives be above a fetus life. Why should human life be above animals lives. . See how it can keep going back to a moral truth position.
I want a minimal government, not a nanny state. I want govt to remove laws not add them.
Govt don't need to dictate a woman's reproductive system.
Except if the fetus was determined to be a human life. Then if the government didnt intervene it becomes legalised murder. Thats why the government has laws about killing now which range from 1st degree to self defence and assisted suicide which is illegal in many places.
The givenment cannot help but set certain laws, rules and regulations as otherwise there would be chaos, self rule run riot. Otherwise people would be saying oh, I decided to kill my neighbour because they had their music up too loud last night and now I don't have to be disturbed by them ever again and can have peace ect.
I want to live in a safe, stable and thriving society.
If my society is not these things I would seriously seek to move to another country.
Humans are social animals, we need to co-exist with others. But we don't want to get killed or murdered, we don't want to be forever guarding our stuff. We do need a bare minimum of laws over how people behave in our society. That is the purpose of our elective government. Not to force someone's moral beliefs on others.
I have already covered government and laws. This is something beyond the control of people to some extent. We can vote governments out that we don't like but all governments are pretty similar today. They all have a raft of laws, rules and regulations that help keep society in order and to some extent these are imposed even if people disagree.
But I was thinking more about social situations. Where people interact and how they determine what is morally right and wrong. Do they just both walk away from a situation without any moral truth if they disagree. Or is there some way of determining moral truth for that situation. I see this asked by someone else on this thread. What if 2 people with different subjective moral views about child abuse. One says its OK the other says its not. Is there any way of determining what the moral truth is.
If you are asking why people would kill a baby killer?
I presume it is because people don't want others in society going around killing their family members.
They would see me as a threat to their safety.
OK a couple of scenarios for you. 1st- If a person kills a pregnant women isn't there also a murder charge on killing the unborn baby. 2nd- If the fetus is determined as human life would not the same baby killer label be applied to you and therefore people would see you as a threat to their safety.
3rd-who says that killing family members is bad an that peoples safety should be the measure of what is right and wrong. What if another society thought that killing babies is good. Who says your society has the ultimate truth to whether that is right or wrong.
Not really. As soon as we are in a situation where a moral value needs determining we will intuitively and automatically revert to thinking in moral truths. You will say its OK, I will say its not. You will say we don't need honesty in our debate but as soon as I misrepresent your position or provide dubious statistics you will protest that I am being dishonest.
If you don't use honesty as a value then we have no way of engaging in anything of substance or in interaction that needs to be determined or a truth found. Human interactions are about finding the truth. The very act of claiming something, anything is a proclamation that a person holds a truth about something.
Nope. There is no objective morality. Subjective morality is nonsense. It is easier and clearer to talk in non moral language.
Yet you began with an objective statement. How do you know theres no objective morality. Is that your subjective or non-moral claim.
Still doesn't make it objective.
The question has to be in light of you saying there is no subjective, objective or morals (moral language) at all. Can a corporation operate without any moral values or ethics. If morality is not objective (objective meaning morality is universal and isn't up for interpretation).
Then how do you explain a corporation imposing their ethics which can also be based on morality on others who may disagree and have a different moral interpretation. Isnt the corporation taling a universial position on morality by saying that their moral view applies to everyone regardless of what their personal interpretation is.