Yes so we do want to save humans in general when faced with the real situation. What happens if you keep going and come across another child thats not yours. You will probably save them as well even if that came at the cost of your own child in the end. We cannot deny the moral truth that we value "Life" intrinsically, not just because it brings us happiness, not just because its a particular life. Not for any other value reason apart from "Life"itself.
PS I am not saying you don't put your child first. Just pointing out what happens in reality. If we were to find a strangers child and walked away from them crying and choking in the smoke we could not live with ourselves even if we managed to save our child instead.
The fact that I find value in life, both my life and the lives of others, does not mean "life has value" is an objective fact.
So is it an objective fact that these moral wrongs of rape, murder and stealing cause hardships or not.
It's typical enough that I'll say yes. Rape, murder, stealing all cause some degree of hardship.
Now let me say it again:
The amount of hardship is subjective.
Its not a case of definition but justification for believing its true. This is epistemics and we can justify knowledge and beliefs as being true based on an assessment of our efforts investigate alternative possibilities. If the belief stands up after maximizing our efforst to do this then we are justified to believe it to be true.
Some things have already been subjected to this process and are seen as prima facie truths such as "Life" being intrinsically valuable and other values such as Human Rights. They don't need to be reasoned as they already pass the tesr.
So you claim "life has inherent value" as an axiom, yet you don't justify claiming it is an axiom, and you repeatedly refuse to answer questions that such a claim leads to.
In the course of life and the circumstances that happen all lives are not valued the same. If someone breaks the law and ends up in prison which causes them a less valuable life then that was because of what happened during a life lived.
So, how do we OBJECTIVELY determine how much value a life has?
But this doesn't devalue their natural human right to life which is based on "life" itself being of value without any other reason to make it valuable. You seem to find this concept hard to grasp.
So why is it that the only thing that seems to treat life as having any value is people?
I'll tell you why: because the idea that life has intrinsic value is a subjective Human idea.
So whats your point. How does enforcing codes onto companies negate that the codes are laws and objective. The fact that only one set of moral codes are viewed as being true seems to be over riding all other subjective views.
If all moral views are equal under a subjective/relative system then a government has no right to force one specific moral view onto companies and companies have no right to force this onto their employees. So a relative/subjective moral system is living a contradictory moral reality
Are you really playing this game again?
Your cry of, "If morality is subjective, we should be willing to let other moral ideas exist, even if we disagree, and let people rape and murder if they think it's the morally right thing to do" is old and tired.
I've responded to it many times. You obviously haven't bothered to read my reply to it. Since you didn't read it before, I don't see why you'd read it now, and these intellectually dishonest games you are playing are getting boring and tiresome.
The fact is when it comes to morality we see a small and universal set of moral truths such as with Human Rights for which we are trying to weed out those wrong acts like desrimnination against females. Just because a culture acts differently doesn't make it morally right.
The fact that we can stand on something like Human Rights and say that the culture descriminating against little girls is morally wrong is our basis that that culture is just plain wrong in an objective way.
Once again, you claim that morality is objective without offering any support.
Repeating your claims does not make them true.
No everyone has inalienable rights to life regardless of age, race, or whatever. We cannot kill an old person because they are old in the same way we cannot kill a child because they are young.
What your talking about is something completely different such as a moral dilemma in choosing one life over another in a specific setting for which we need to consider. But for the value of "Life" itself without all those specific added contexts everyones "Life" is of value just because its human "Life".
I'm not asking who you would kill. I wasn't talking about choosing one to die at all. Are you reduced to obvious strawman arguments now as an attempt to hide the fact you are incapable of answering the question?
Thats not even an objection to what I just explained.
No, it's pointing out that you use flawed arguments, treating it like a dichotomy when it isn't.
Unless there is some specific circumstance you want to apply this to I would have to say that both lives are of equal value.
Show me how you OBJECTIVELY determined this.
We don't just kill old people because we think they are of less value because they only have a few years to live. We think that old people are still of value and worth it even if their life is harder and they have less time to live. Otherwise we would have squads going around collecting old people because they are less valuable and eliminating them.
I'm not asking you to choose one for death, for crying out loud!
So what is the proof for Math apart from an assumption its correct. Its an abstract idea and there is nothing physical about Math. So whats this proof for Math. Morality is also abstract and theres no physical thing to pick up and measure. Why can't morality work like Math truths.
Why can't it? Well, why don't you show us how it can, mmm? Do more than just say, "Well, maybe it works that way." Put your money where your mouth is.
Ok so its obvious that 1+1=2 agree. 1+1=3 is wrong, agreed. So rape = being wrong is an obvious truth. Rape = being morally good is like 1+1=3. There is no way you can say rape is good. Its impossible to = being good. Unless you can come up with some explanation why rape = being good then there is no such thing. Its like trying to come up with an explanation why 1+1=3 is correct.
No. Claiming that something is obvious is not a proof. I showed you a proof that 1+1=2, so there's no need to rely on the "it's just obvious" argument. Yet that's all you can do for morality.
I could go to a Star Trek convention and say, "It's obvious that Star Trek is better than Star Wars, and everyone there would agree with me. That doesn't make it true.
But thats just an equation made up be humans. You would have been better using the example of placing 1 apple on a table and then adding another apple to show there is now 2 apples. But the formula is abstract and just because we write down some formula doesn't make it objective. Its just writing on some blackboard created by humans.
Yeah, you have no idea how mathematical proof works, do you?
No they don't put different values on the variables. As we see witrh "killing in self defence". There is a a set criteria for what is "killing in self defence". There is a set criteria for 1st degree murder. If a person kills someone to protect their family then that is clearly different to someone who has planned and plotted to kill someone out of revenge.
Okay, a person acts in self defence and the other person ends up dead. Is that morally right or wrong. Show your working.
It doesn't matter how they achieve that "functioning society". The point is they all think a functioning society is a good basis for morality.
So what? The fact that there are numerous ways have a functioning society means there is no one objectively best way of doing it. Otherwise all societies would be the same, or you could show that Society A is better than Society B.
For example different cultures have different ways of greeting people. But that doesn't change the moral truth that greeting people with repsect. Some may kiss the person on the cheek, some may embrace, others may bow and in the west we shake hands. But they all represent the moral truth of showing repsect for others when we greet them.
And there are cultures that would find the concept of kissing on the lips deeply disgusting. Perhaps we are objectively morally wrong for kissing. You're the expert in objective morality, show us the moral equation that shows us if kissing is morally right or morally wrong.
Justice is justice. Its the act of bringin the person to Justice. What your talking about is degrees of punishment. But Justice has already been down by apprehending the person in the first place. If there was no justice then why even bother to apprehend people for doing wrong. You can't see the forest through the trees.
Person arrested = justice has been served?
Okay. So a rape victim reports the crime, her rapist is arrested, goes to court, and is found innocent and released. Does the rape victim say, "He was apprehended, so justice was served"? Of course not.
