Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 75147230" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>Yes, and abuse is a way of measuring objective morality. But when you use it or harm for measuring subjective morality it then raises the question as to what constitutes harm or abuse. Not because it can never be measured but because for subjective morality there is no grounding so abuse and harm can be arbitrary.</p><p></p><p> I don't think the nature and culture of a family makes a difference to the moral truth. It may make a difference in how they have to deal with the situation but it should not prevent them from finding the moral truth. It just may be more difficult to see. At the end of the day, all parents agree that they want the best for their child but different circumstances may make achieving that difference.</p><p></p><p>But that doesn't change the fact they all want the best for their child and not putting them in an abusive situation should be avoided. If one family in certain circumstances has to do that differently than another that doesn't mean that there is a different moral value going on. That is where people get confused in interpreting the different ways people have to negotiate to achieve the moral standard are the actual morals when it's not. But still what is it that each parent is wanting to achieve. It is not to abuse their child. The fact that there may be a difference in opinion based on an understanding of the facts about what constitutes abuse or not is not a difference in the opinion of the moral itself. They both agree that abusing a child is wrong. It is the same as the greeting example. The fact that different cultures have different understandings of how to greet doesn't change the fact they all have the same morals to greet people with respect.</p><p></p><p> Like I said that has nothing to do with the moral itself as explained above. But the other thing is that unlike the example you gave above where some may have subtle differences like should a child be made to go to school or see the world there may not be obvious differences and there may be benefits for having both.</p><p></p><p>But in many cases of culture, the difference is obvious and there is usually no rational or justified reason for why they believe that it is not abuse. They just believe it is OK and even contradict their own position. So when we examine all these differences in factual understanding and reasons I think you will find that we all believe similar morals and when we don't there is no rational reason for the moral position.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 75147230, member: 342064"] Yes, and abuse is a way of measuring objective morality. But when you use it or harm for measuring subjective morality it then raises the question as to what constitutes harm or abuse. Not because it can never be measured but because for subjective morality there is no grounding so abuse and harm can be arbitrary. I don't think the nature and culture of a family makes a difference to the moral truth. It may make a difference in how they have to deal with the situation but it should not prevent them from finding the moral truth. It just may be more difficult to see. At the end of the day, all parents agree that they want the best for their child but different circumstances may make achieving that difference. But that doesn't change the fact they all want the best for their child and not putting them in an abusive situation should be avoided. If one family in certain circumstances has to do that differently than another that doesn't mean that there is a different moral value going on. That is where people get confused in interpreting the different ways people have to negotiate to achieve the moral standard are the actual morals when it's not. But still what is it that each parent is wanting to achieve. It is not to abuse their child. The fact that there may be a difference in opinion based on an understanding of the facts about what constitutes abuse or not is not a difference in the opinion of the moral itself. They both agree that abusing a child is wrong. It is the same as the greeting example. The fact that different cultures have different understandings of how to greet doesn't change the fact they all have the same morals to greet people with respect. Like I said that has nothing to do with the moral itself as explained above. But the other thing is that unlike the example you gave above where some may have subtle differences like should a child be made to go to school or see the world there may not be obvious differences and there may be benefits for having both. But in many cases of culture, the difference is obvious and there is usually no rational or justified reason for why they believe that it is not abuse. They just believe it is OK and even contradict their own position. So when we examine all these differences in factual understanding and reasons I think you will find that we all believe similar morals and when we don't there is no rational reason for the moral position. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
Top
Bottom