Where does morality come from?

[the iconoclast]

As I said at the beginning, a third person narrative may be an eyewitness account.

Hey hey my fellow brother in Christ

Yep, well.....something along those lines

Post 2552.

Dont forget saint I record all our conversations and I have a good memory.

You said

"Eye witness accounts are written in the first person: "I saw..., I heard..., I did..." An account written in the third person: He saw..., He heard..., He did..." may not be an eye-witness account. In the case of the Gospels there is evidence which suggests that they are not."

My dear you did not say "a third person narrative may be an eyewitness account."

You said "may not be an eye-witness account" because "Eye witness accounts are written in the first person: "I saw..., I heard..., I did..."

Similar but used within context means something different.

"I may open this door" is expressing a possibility, permission or hope.

"I may not be successful in opening this door" expresses something different.

"I may not open this door" says something else.

Any finally we have your post to stevew post 2532.

"There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament. Let me guess: You're a Protestant."

So please do not try and pull one over me my dear. If you wanna assume that im unintelligent, then I will not stop you, I'll let you.

More fun for me.

Now, I have shown you that a 3rd person narrative - when you are not the focal point - can still be an eye witness account. You reply "As I said at the beginning, a third person narrative may be an eyewitness account."

The context of that answer shows me you are not in disagreement. So it is indeed possible.

Now let's turn our attention to the substance of your remark to stevew

You said "There are no eyewitness accounts of Christ in the New Testament."

1. What argument can you treat me with to prove your claim?

It's interesting that you use the Gospel of John as an example--the only Gospel the least likely to have been authored by an eyewitness.

My dear brother, I don't usually do something without thought and strategy.

2.Why is the Gospel of John likely not to have been authored by an eye witness?

I love your use of the word "likely" because just how certain are you?

No, I would feel trapped f had t believe what you believe about scripture. That the Gospels are all eyewitness accounts or they're trash;

Fair enough.

that Genesis is 100% literal history

3.Why would you feel trapped if you believed that Genesis is 100% literal history?

What belief system of yours would be compromised?

or Jesus died for nothing, etc.

4. Are you suggesting I believe that Jesus died for nothing?

How did you come to that conclusion?

I don't need you to explain that to me; how could you, when you have just denied it:

5. Fair enough but what did I deny and where did I say it?

You are aware I'm Pentecostal right? What do Pentecostals believe?

Ps if you want to fight some point, tell me what you think i said and show me where i said it. I will be more than haopy to address your concerns.

"Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice."

What do you know I did say.

However I cannot see me this elusive passage where I deny something or do something wrong.

6. What have you got?

I don't know--you tell me. There must be some reason you believe something so goofy about Genesis. No essential point of Christian doctrine requires it.

I got some moves. Let's start with the Gospel of John - heads up I'm no expert but I know what im doing.

John 1:3
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made

7. What do you say about this verse. Should i trust it or what am i to make of verse 1:3?

That all Christians always and everywhere have regarded the literal inerrancy of Genesis as essential doctrine until some of us were lead astray by Darwin.

Hahaha sounds 'goofy' to me hehehe.
- where do I get that from, right

You know what, my ban from that particular forum was lifted in March. "Ima gon com luk fer you" hehehe

Not to me so much. When I lived among "Bible-believing" Christians I was younger and more formidable and known to own guns myself.

You must have been a formidable opponent. I bet the ladies must have lined up. God bless you sir.

I soon put a stop to the bullying of my kids by their teachers and things of that kind.

I am sorry to hear about your bullied children. THAT does sicken me.

God bless you for standing up for your children. Now that is a true father.

But it is within living memory that Bible-believing Christians would hang randomly selected black men for fun and many of them still nurture a grudge for having lost the war 150 years ago.

8. Would you say that you are making a narrative about an eye witnessed event?

Hint hint

I am not familiar with such atrocities. I'll acknowledge that this is your answer, but I cannot comment if what you say is correct or not.

Just because someone says or does something in the name of God, does not always make it so.

Heads up I would not try and play the who's more violent card.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

That the theory of evolution does not dishonor Jesus? It doesn't even mention Jesus.

Before I comment, ill see how you answer 7.

No, I dislike Trump because he is pandering to them and empowering them at the expense of the religious liberty of the rest of us.

9. What is trump eroding at the expense of your religious liberty?

Cheers

Just wanna say I like you, even though you may not feel fondly of my person.

 

[VirOptimus]

It is morally justifiable for someone to be punished for heinous crimes by the death penalty.

And this is "objectivly true" because?

And why is the death penalty abolished by so many countries if its "objectivly right"?

Like the death penalty punishment in itself is not a moral act. The moral value here is about not abusing a child/person. So spanking in itself is not necessarily wrong. It is the abuse of a child that is wrong. So a determination needs to be made as to whether a person has abused the child.

What some get confused with is that because a determination needs to be made as to whether the act is classed as abuse or not then this must mean morality is subjective. But that is not the case. Once the misunderstanding is sorted then most people agree in the moral value that abusing a child is wrong. You will not find any reasonable person say abusing a kid is morally right.

But spanking is classed as abuse in many countries and not in other, so, how do we know what is moraly "true" ther can surely only be one moral truth.

The same with abortion. The determination needs to be made as to whether an embryo or fetus is human life in the first place. If a fetus is regarded as not a living human then where is the moral wrong? But if it is then this would breach the taking of an innocent human life for no justified reason. As far as the experts are concerned (Pediatricians) an embryo is regarded as human life so this would mean that abortion is morally wrong.

But definitions are fluid and just made up. So, where are the moral truth? And why do so many hold conflicting positions if there are a "moral truth" regarding abortion?

This is an interesting one. Christianity believes a male can only have one wife. It is interesting that western secular societies also support this position. The question for non-religious positions against Polygamy is why. What basis do they use to declare that it is morally wrong and then force this onto others like its an objective moral?

So, where are the moral truth? How do we find out the one true answer?

I don't think religion itself is moral. if you mean which religion holds the truth to morality then this is a complex debate that needs a lot of discussions. A case can be made that Christianity is the only one true religion and therefore holds the truth to morality.

So, no answer.

What age is regarded as consent has nothing to do with morality. The moral value here is that humans mature and there is a point where they may not understand the complexities of relationships and sex. But whether it is a specific age is not what determines the moral value. The moral value is that a young person should not be taken advantage of.

Just because there is some disagreement about what age a person can be mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into does not mean morality about this is subjective. The point is that everyone agrees that a young person should not be taken advantage of.

No, everyone does not agree, the age of consent is very varying around the world. So, where are the "objective truth", which country is "right" and why?

The same as the age of consent. The moral is young people should not be allowed to drink as they are not able to handle it and it is an adult's duty of care to ensure they are protected. So the moral is about not harming young people or putting them in harm's way and everyone agrees on this. Just because there may be disagreement on what the age is that a young person can handle alcohol doesn't mean the moral value for this is subjective.

And why is your view here "objectivly right"?

Same again as alcohol. But do you notice that secular society imposes a certain moral position on alcohol and smoking like they hold the moral truth? Why should anyone be able to do this under a subjective system if there is no real independent measure for morality? Why is one view of morality imposed on everyone? Isn't that an objective moral position.

No, its not an "objective position". Its a reasoned position where the arguments are shown to all.

Once again the same as smoking and alcohol. Why should one view be forced on everyone else who has their own personal views on this? many people may subjectively think drugs are OK but they don't get a choice to push their view. Well, that is sort of changing with the legalization of pot.

Though this is more to do with money influencing whether it is moral or not which is one of the weaknesses of allowing subjective morality to dominate as it usually means those in power or who have the means to influence control morality because there is no independent measure of morality.

But smoking, drinking, and drugs are about abusing a person's body and as adults, we would have a duty of care to protect those who do not know better. An objective moral position such as a Christian one would say that any abuse of one's body is morally wrong. But I fail to see how there can be any objective stand beyond this as even if you claim it is about wellbeing, wellbeing can be argued to be a subjective view.

One person may think it is no good for human wellbeing healthwise, but another may make the argument that alcohol and drugs make a person happy and therefore promotes better human wellbeing. Human wellbeing can also be arbitrarily determined. Morality doesn't equate to human suffering or
happiness, nor does it equate to what helps us survive and thrive or not.

Yes, you keep using non-objective arguments although you say you have the "objective truth", why is that?

 

[VirOptimus]

But that's a paradox as using any "basis" is taking an objective position. Whatever basis you come up with that will be the objective measure outside humans.

No, using a "basis" is not a objective position. Its using a reasoned argument.

Unless there is an objective reference point how do you even make an argument for murder being wrong. It seems people appeal to arguments of why something is wrong like they intuitively know its wrong which is more or less acknowledging that we know of an objective measure. The ironic thing is when you try to appeal to any reason why murder is wrong that's going to apply to society that is still using some objective reference point.

Under a subjective system, there shouldn't be any objective reference point. The moment you cite that the reason why murder is wrong is that x then you are taking an objective moral position. That's because another person under the same subjective moral system may not view X as the reason why murder is wrong so what right have you got to force X onto them. Another person may think Y is the justified reason? Is not Y just as a valid view or is there some exclusiveness to moral positions of X.

Even if you say well X is about human wellbeing or safety another person can say but why is wellbeing and safety the measure. How does human suffering and happiness equate to what is right and wrong morally? What you can rationalize as being human wellbeing and happiness another can come up with other just as valid alternative reasons. Who can tell which is the right one as its all subjective?

Again, you can make arguments without using "objective" arguments.

In fact, all moral debates do so, including you.

 

[stevevw]

And this is "objectivly true" because?

under the law where there need to be consequences for wrongdoing heinous crimes deserve severe punishment. Otherwise, moral law holds no authority. Ultimately God has determined this as He is the true authority for the moral law.

And why is the death penalty abolished by so many countries if its "objectively right"?

You are making the logical fallacy that because people choose something besides objective morality that this must mean there is no objective morality.

But spanking is classed as abuse in many countries and not in other, so, how do we know what is moraly "true" there can surely only be one moral truth.

Once again you are making a logical fallacy because people may have different views on what is morally right that there is no objective morality.

But in saying that spanking is classed as abuse what measure is being used. If a no spanking law is forced on people isn't that taking an objective moral position and saying that we know the moral truth about spanking and therefore we can force our moral truth on everyone.

It may be that spanking was banned because of the abuses people did in disciplining their children. But those extreme examples are not representative of whether the physically measured discipline of a child is good or bad. It may be that controlled physical discipline has its benefits. Just because there is disagreement on physical discipline doesn't mean there is subjective morality. It may be that people do not fully understand what the true benefits of physical discipline are at the moment.

But definitions are fluid and just made up.

What do you mean. If that is the case then your saying science is fluid and made up.

So, where are the moral truth? And why do so many hold conflicting positions if there are a "moral truth" regarding abortion?

Once again you are making a logical fallacy because people have conflicting positions that there must not be objective morality. We have free will and can go against the truth or some people can be affected that they cannot see the truth.

Humans also have a carnal nature where we have an evil side. We are selfish and want to be gods of our own lives. So people can rationalize and deny the truth so that they can do their own thing. That is why subjective morality is unworkable because humans can easily be influenced by many things (personal experience, biases, money, power, personal motives) and deny what is the right thing to do.

So, where are the moral truth? How do we find out the one true answer?

Moral truths are not some physical objects you can find and pick up. They are within us, our conscience, intuition. Some say they are laws of nature. We know them and can recognize them in the way we react and are often appeal to certain acts as being objectively wrong or right. Just like we cannot see laws of nature but we know they are real such as gravity or matter.

So, no answer.

Do you really want to get into a complicated debate about which religion holds the truth? Here is a short video that shows how the Christianity is the one true worldview. If you notice of the 4 main religions 3 of them all agree in the God of the Bible Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk

No, everyone does not agree, the age of consent is very varying around the world. So, where are the "objective truth", which country is "right" and why?

The age of consent is not the moral value. What is the age of consent all about morally? It is about the protection of a young person being taken advantage of. So it is about the abuse of young people, that is moral. All those nations/states agree that protecting a young person from abuse is morally good.

Do you think that if one state things a 16-year-old is mature enough to understand things rather than a 17-year old that one of them doesn't believe that protecting a young person against abuse is morally right? of course, they both agree in this moral. The age difference is usually small, its not like one nation thinks 11-year-olds are mature enough as opposed to 25-year-olds.

It may be that young people mature faster in one nation either because of their culture or their physical attributes where they develop earlier. So you cannot have a hard and fast rule for maturity that makes every nation's age of consent like 17 years exactly. But regardless of the small age difference, they all agree on the moral principle involved which is to protect young immature people from being taken advantage of. The fact that they all agree on this shows that this is an objective moral truth.

And why is your view here "objectivly right"?

because young people cannot handle alcohol and as adults, we have a moral obligation to ensure they are protected. Primarily abuse of our bodies or others is morally wrong.

No, its not an "objective position". Its a reasoned position where the arguments are shown to all.

And who said those reasons should equate to what is morally right and wrong. Why isn't someone elses opposing reasons just as valid and not being considered? Isn't that conclusion from that particular line of reasoning an objective conclusion if it's forced on everyone. Afterall one of the criteria for objective morality is it being universally applied to all.

Yes, you keep using non-objective arguments although you say you have the "objective truth", why is that?

How is arguing that it is hypocritical for a secular society to force one set of morals on everyone based on a subjective set of reasoning supporting subjective morality? That is illogical. I am actually showing how the way even secular subjectivist behave is really objectively when it comes to morality by the cat that they believe and impose one set of morality on all whether they like it or not and don't allow people to express or promote their alternative subjective moral views without any justification.

Saying the reason we can force one set of morals is that we reasoned that it is good for us or healthy for us or helps maintain control is not good enough as that is still a subjective assessment and those assessments don't equate to what is morally right or wrong. So it logically follows if people act like there are objective morals, speaks like there are objective morals, imposes a specific morality on others like objective morals then chances are there are objective morals.

 

[stevevw]

No, using a "basis" is not a objective position. Its using a reasoned argument.

So what is the basis? What is the reasoned argument based on?

Again, you can make arguments without using "objective" arguments
In fact, all moral debates do so, including you.

So how do you tell if the argument is true or not? How do you know the moral position you are arguing for is the right one. What independent measure shows its the right one.

 

[VirOptimus]

under the law where there need to be consequences for wrongdoing heinous crimes deserve severe punishment. Otherwise, moral law holds no authority. Ultimately God has determined this as He is the true authority for the moral law.

You are making the logical fallacy that because people choose something besides objective morality that this must mean there is no objective morality.

Once again you are making a logical fallacy because people may have different views on what is morally right that there is no objective morality.

But in saying that spanking is classed as abuse what measure is being used. If a no spanking law is forced on people isn't that taking an objective moral position and saying that we know the moral truth about spanking and therefore we can force our moral truth on everyone.

It may be that spanking was banned because of the abuses people did in disciplining their children. But those extreme examples are not representative of whether the physically measured discipline of a child is good or bad. It may be that controlled physical discipline has its benefits. Just because there is disagreement on physical discipline doesn't mean there is subjective morality. It may be that people do not fully understand what the true benefits of physical discipline are at the moment.

What do you mean. If that is the case then your saying science is fluid and made up. Once again you are making a logical fallacy because people have conflicting positions that there must not be objective morality. We have free will and can go against the truth or some people can be affected that they cannot see the truth.

Humans also have a carnal nature where we have an evil side. We are selfish and want to be gods of our own lives. So people can rationalize and deny the truth so that they can do their own thing. That is why subjective morality is unworkable because humans can easily be influenced by many things (personal experience, biases, money, power, personal motives) and deny what is the right thing to do.

Moral truths are not some physical objects you can find and pick up. They are within us, our conscience, intuition. Some say they are laws of nature. We know them and can recognize them in the way we react and are often appeal to certain acts as being objectively wrong or right. Just like we cannot see laws of nature but we know they are real such as gravity or matter.

Do you really want to get into a complicated debate about which religion holds the truth? Here is a short video that shows how the Christianity is the one true worldview. If you notice of the 4 main religions 3 of them all agree in the God of the Bible Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk

The age of consent is not the moral value. What is the age of consent all about morally? It is about the protection of a young person being taken advantage of. So it is about the abuse of young people, that is moral. All those nations/states agree that protecting a young person from abuse is morally good.

Do you think that if one state things a 16-year-old is mature enough to understand things rather than a 17-year old that one of them doesn't believe that protecting a young person against abuse is morally right? of course, they both agree in this moral. The age difference is usually small, its not like one nation thinks 11-year-olds are mature enough as opposed to 25-year-olds.

It may be that young people mature faster in one nation either because of their culture or their physical attributes where they develop earlier. So you cannot have a hard and fast rule for maturity that makes every nation's age of consent like 17 years exactly. But regardless of the small age difference, they all agree on the moral principle involved which is to protect young immature people from being taken advantage of. The fact that they all agree on this shows that this is an objective moral truth.

because young people cannot handle alcohol and as adults, we have a moral obligation to ensure they are protected. Primarily abuse of our bodies or others is morally wrong.

And who said those reasons should equate to what is morally right and wrong. Why isn't someone elses opposing reasons just as valid and not being considered? Isn't that conclusion from that particular line of reasoning an objective conclusion if it's forced on everyone. Afterall one of the criteria for objective morality is it being universally applied to all.

How is arguing that it is hypocritical for a secular society to force one set of morals on everyone based on a subjective set of reasoning supporting subjective morality? That is illogical. I am actually showing how the way even secular subjectivist behave is really objectively when it comes to morality by the cat that they believe and impose one set of morality on all whether they like it or not and don't allow people to express or promote their alternative subjective moral views without any justification.

Saying the reason we can force one set of morals is that we reasoned that it is good for us or healthy for us or helps maintain control is not good enough as that is still a subjective assessment and those assessments don't equate to what is morally right or wrong. So it logically follows if people act like there are objective morals, speaks like there are objective morals, imposes a specific morality on others like objective morals then chances are there are objective morals.

To summarize.;

You havent shown or suppported "objective morality" in any of the questions. Furthermore, you show no way of findning the "moral truths".

This shows that "objective morality" is a meaningless concept as it cant be proven, and it cant be found.

 

[VirOptimus]

So what is the basis? What is the reasoned argument based on?

So how do you tell if the argument is true or not? How do you know the moral position you are arguing for is the right one. What independent measure shows its the right one.

"True" is a very complicated concept.

Its not applicable to morals.

 

[stevevw]

You expect a non-objective morality system to have objective values? Do you not understand how stupid that is?

I am not expecting a non-objective moral system to have objective morality. I am saying that people who claim a subjective moral system are really acting like its an objective moral system by imposing morality universally and not allowing any other subjective views because they say they are wrong without any justification to do so as they dont have any reference point to determine this.

And morality systems based on non-objective views work just fine, see here in Sweden f.ex.

Again, answer post 2704.

How do you know they are not just really objective systems being claimed to be subjective. How do people intuitive know right from wrong and seem to all be the same if subjective morality is just something that people make up and can change? That doesn't make sense or bares out what really happens.

You will have to point me to examples of Swedish moral systems.

 

[stevevw]

To summarize.;

You havent shown or suppported "objective morality" in any of the questions. Furthermore, you show no way of findning the "moral truths".

This shows that "objective morality" is a meaningless concept as it cant be proven, and it cant be found.

yet we all live morality objectively every day and most people agree that we do. If it walks like a duck.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not expecting a non-objective moral system to have objective morality. I am saying that people who claim a subjective moral system are really acting like its an objective moral system by imposing morality universally and not allowing any other subjective views because they say they are wrong without any justification to do so as they dont have any reference point to determine this.

But everbody do allow different moral views.

And tell me, how can a subjective agent (i.e. person) have an objective opinion?

How do you know they are not just really objective systems being claimed to be subjective. How do people intuitive know right from wrong and seem to all be the same if subjective morality is just something that people make up and can change? That doesn't make sense or bares out what really happens.

You will have to point me to examples of Swedish moral systems.

"We" know because "we" know how laws are made and the reasoning and philosophy used.

Read Hägerström.

 

[VirOptimus]

yet we all live morality objectively every day and most people agree that we do. If it walks like a duck.

Uh, this makes zero sense.

We all live our lives, therefore "objective morality"? Thats stupid.

 

[stevevw]

"True" is a very complicated concept.

Its not applicable to morals.

How is it a complicated concept? Its quite simple. When people make arguments they try to convince others of their position. They are arguing some truth. So they need to have some measuring points to do this. Otherwise, they would be going around in circles. IE

Person A. I believe that having an affair is morally OK.
Person B. Why do you believe that.
Person A. Because I think X
Person B. I disagree because I think it is Y
Person A. What makes you think that Y is correct
Person B. Because I think ect
Person A. And what makes that is correct
and so on.
If there is no independent objective reference point for morality then we can never establish what is morally right and wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is it a complicated concept? Its quite simple. When people make arguments they try to convince others of their position. They are arguing some truth. So they need to have some measuring points to do this. Otherwise, they would be going around in circles. IE

Person A. I believe that having an affair is morally OK.
Person B. Why do you believe that.
Person A. Because I think X
Person B. I disagree because I think it is Y
Person A. What makes you think that Y is correct
Person B. Because I think ect
Person A. And what makes that is correct
and so on.
If there is no independent objective reference point for morality then we can never establish what is morally right and wrong.

Yes, that is how moral debates are held and why truth isnt applicable to morality.

And truth is a mostly metaphysical concept, and metaphysics are hard.

 

[stevevw]

But everbody do allow different moral views.

And tell me, how can a subjective agent (i.e. person) have an objective opinion?



"We" know because "we" know how laws are made and the reasoning and philosophy used.

Read Hägerström.

I have read some, but will have another look. But what I find hard to understand is that when you say we know how laws are made and our reasoning this is more or less saying what people say about our intuition. That we know what is right and wrong within us. We can tell, smell it, sense it, recognize it. We reason like we have a set of guidelines in us and its not just some arbitrary created set of morals. The fact that we don't entertain the idea of other certain subjective alternatives and always seem to keep within a narrow set regardless of what nation or culture seems too much of a coincidence where everyone just happens to stumble on the same set of moral laws.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that is how moral debates are held and why truth isnt applicable to morality.

And truth is a mostly metaphysical concept, and metaphysics are hard.

Then that leaves the moral conclusion to whoever can make a convincing argument based on whatever measure they want. As we have seen in our history and in social situations we can convince others of morally wrong positions based on self-interest or a need to push our views onto others while convincing even ourselves that we are being morally justified. It doesn't make for a good way to do what is morally right. If there is no truth then just about anything can be presented as right and good.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have read some, but will have another look. But what I find hard to understand is that when you say we know how laws are made and our reasoning this is more or less saying what people say about our intuition. That we know what is right and wrong within us. We can tell, smell it, sense it, recognize it. We reason like we have a set of guidelines in us and its not just some arbitrary created set of morals. The fact that we don't entertain the idea of other certain subjective alternatives and always seem to keep within a narrow set regardless of what nation or culture seems too much of a coincidence where everyone just happens to stumble on the same set of moral laws.

But you are wrong, it isnt a "narrow set of morals". Its incredibly varied in time and place.

Just look how you couldnt answer my questions.

 

[stevevw]

Uh, this makes zero sense.

We all live our lives, therefore "objective morality"? Thats stupid.

No we all claim there is no moral truth but live our lives and react to moral situations like there is moral truth.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then that leaves the moral conclusion to whoever can make a convincing argument based on whatever measure they want. As we have seen in our history and in social situations we can convince others of morally wrong positions based on self-interest or a need to push our views onto others while convincing even ourselves that we are being morally justified. It doesn't make for a good way to do what is morally right. If there is no truth then just about anything can be presented as right and good.

Yes, that is how the world works. Just read history and it will be selfevident.

 

[VirOptimus]

No we all claim there is no moral truth but live our lives and react to moral situations like there is moral truth.

No "we all" dont do that.

 

[stevevw]

But you are wrong, it isnt a "narrow set of morals". Its incredibly varied in time and place.

Just look how you couldn't answer my questions.

You just made and used a lot of logical fallacies to make your points like in using the fact that because people's views on morality vary this must mean there is no objective morality. You also misrepresented what morality is by saying that differences in the age of consent must mean differences in moral views. When all those nations morally agreed that protecting young people from being taken advantage of. So if this is how you see things then I can understand why your under the wrong impression that morality is subjective.

Here is another observation. If as you say that there is only subjective morality then for countries that say have a different position on say rape just as they do get away with a different view on the age of consent. Then how do you stop people from getting away with horrible moral positions if there is no moral truth? What if these differences are within the same country. How can we condemn and stop different moral views that we think are wrong?