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
Is there an absolute morality?
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: 76492824" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>Yet we do have good reasons for making life valuable and enforce those reasons on others through Human Rights and laws. So either these Human Rights and laws are errors or delusions or they stand for something. The fact is they are implemented as objective Rights and laws and that is what makes them real in the world.</p><p></p><p> But personal feelings about which life should be saved first does not negate that "Life" itself is valuable and should be saved in general. The fact that people risk their life to save others including strangers in the first place is the point.</p><p></p><p> Of course not. I was only giving one example of how life is valued and a financial value is only because we live in capitalist societies. But as most of us recognise you cannot really put a money value on life.</p><p></p><p> I am speaking more as a human species than indiviudlas. The fact that we can create things that add value to life and the world shows that we should be valued more than rocks who cannot add this value like humans.</p><p></p><p> We can violate the laws even if they are objective. You can choose to write the wrong answer on a Math equation and violate Math laws. But this doesn’t mean there are no Math facts to find.</p><p></p><p>But you missed the point. You are objecting that people are breaching moral truths like murdering others, dispossessing Indigenous people of their land and rights. This shows that you understand that there is a morally right or wrong way to behave. You cannot complain about wrongs being done unless you have an objective basis to measure what wrong is being done.</p><p></p><p> But there is a BIG difference between claiming that your view of Star is an objective fact that "only applies to you" and declaring that a moral wrong has been done into the world that applies to others in an objective way.</p><p></p><p> I am not talking about HR as in Human Resources but HR as in Human Rights. A companies ethical codes of conduct cover this.</p><p></p><p>So my point was not any Human Rights law can qualify as a Human Right. HR as based on good reasons that are deemed rational and therefore exclude subjective thinking which is not based on rational reasons. By the way a companies ethical codes are based on Human Rights as well.</p><p></p><p> But it does mean that those moral views you disagree with and even may find horrible are just as relevant a view as yours. Just like if someone preferred Star Wars, no one is right or wrong objectively and so everyones view is counted as equal.</p><p></p><p>So if you choose not to agree with another person’s moral view then how do you work out whether it’s something you will support or not if there is no measure of what is right and wrong outside subjective/relative morality. How do you work out its something that is morally wrong in the first place for you to be in a position to reject that view.</p><p></p><p> Actually it’s a strong argument for the simple fact that you need some objective measure outside yourself to determine whether or not you wish to agree with another person’s moral view and to be able to tell if it’s a horrible way to act or not.</p><p></p><p>Otherwise there no point in even disagreeing and in fact there is no such thing as disagreement under subjective morality because there is nothing to disagree with. Its just preferences or feelings after all.</p><p></p><p> Ideally yes governments should take pre-emptive action to minimize human deaths on the roads. But governments work to budgets and so they may not take action until forced. Thats why we see people protesting to governments to deal with black spots. But the fact that it’s an issue that we care to try and save lives on roads shows we value human life.</p><p></p><p> No they would brag to their constituients about how they are saving lives. They look at the stats and see how the measures saved lives. Its the same with almost everything they do is around saving lives. Look at the road traffick campaigns and stats before random breath testing and now drug driving or speeding and how the measures saves lives.</p><p></p><p>But nevertheless how does the governments reaction to the measures they take negate that they take measures to save lives. The fact that they complain that the measures they took saved lives and is now a waste of money shows they are concerned about saving lives in the first place. They know reversing those measures will only cause more deaths again.</p><p></p><p> So therefore we can say this is wrong, the system is wrong and needs to change to put human lives first above money. Any system that puts profits before people is bound to fails as we have been seeing in recent times. The fact that you and most people object and complain that governments put money before people shows that there is an objective basis that human life is valuable. Otherwise why make it an issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 76492824, member: 342064"] Yet we do have good reasons for making life valuable and enforce those reasons on others through Human Rights and laws. So either these Human Rights and laws are errors or delusions or they stand for something. The fact is they are implemented as objective Rights and laws and that is what makes them real in the world. But personal feelings about which life should be saved first does not negate that "Life" itself is valuable and should be saved in general. The fact that people risk their life to save others including strangers in the first place is the point. Of course not. I was only giving one example of how life is valued and a financial value is only because we live in capitalist societies. But as most of us recognise you cannot really put a money value on life. I am speaking more as a human species than indiviudlas. The fact that we can create things that add value to life and the world shows that we should be valued more than rocks who cannot add this value like humans. We can violate the laws even if they are objective. You can choose to write the wrong answer on a Math equation and violate Math laws. But this doesn’t mean there are no Math facts to find. But you missed the point. You are objecting that people are breaching moral truths like murdering others, dispossessing Indigenous people of their land and rights. This shows that you understand that there is a morally right or wrong way to behave. You cannot complain about wrongs being done unless you have an objective basis to measure what wrong is being done. But there is a BIG difference between claiming that your view of Star is an objective fact that "only applies to you" and declaring that a moral wrong has been done into the world that applies to others in an objective way. I am not talking about HR as in Human Resources but HR as in Human Rights. A companies ethical codes of conduct cover this. So my point was not any Human Rights law can qualify as a Human Right. HR as based on good reasons that are deemed rational and therefore exclude subjective thinking which is not based on rational reasons. By the way a companies ethical codes are based on Human Rights as well. But it does mean that those moral views you disagree with and even may find horrible are just as relevant a view as yours. Just like if someone preferred Star Wars, no one is right or wrong objectively and so everyones view is counted as equal. So if you choose not to agree with another person’s moral view then how do you work out whether it’s something you will support or not if there is no measure of what is right and wrong outside subjective/relative morality. How do you work out its something that is morally wrong in the first place for you to be in a position to reject that view. Actually it’s a strong argument for the simple fact that you need some objective measure outside yourself to determine whether or not you wish to agree with another person’s moral view and to be able to tell if it’s a horrible way to act or not. Otherwise there no point in even disagreeing and in fact there is no such thing as disagreement under subjective morality because there is nothing to disagree with. Its just preferences or feelings after all. Ideally yes governments should take pre-emptive action to minimize human deaths on the roads. But governments work to budgets and so they may not take action until forced. Thats why we see people protesting to governments to deal with black spots. But the fact that it’s an issue that we care to try and save lives on roads shows we value human life. No they would brag to their constituients about how they are saving lives. They look at the stats and see how the measures saved lives. Its the same with almost everything they do is around saving lives. Look at the road traffick campaigns and stats before random breath testing and now drug driving or speeding and how the measures saves lives. But nevertheless how does the governments reaction to the measures they take negate that they take measures to save lives. The fact that they complain that the measures they took saved lives and is now a waste of money shows they are concerned about saving lives in the first place. They know reversing those measures will only cause more deaths again. So therefore we can say this is wrong, the system is wrong and needs to change to put human lives first above money. Any system that puts profits before people is bound to fails as we have been seeing in recent times. The fact that you and most people object and complain that governments put money before people shows that there is an objective basis that human life is valuable. Otherwise why make it an issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is there an absolute morality?
Top
Bottom