so when person A tells me abortion is wrong, and person B tells me abortion is fine, how am i to know which is right? you have offered two theories: 1. somehow i just know through instinct, via the evolution or creation, like the children you mentioned who know right from wrong. 2. god tells me. neither of these is working for me, or lots of other people. there is much disagreement. there is no test, no experiment, nothing we can do to figure out the answer. each person has a different answer particular to them, based on their own prejudices or understanding. see how that works? when answers are particular and personal and non concrete, thats what english speakers call "subjective".
Well, I certainly didn't find myself completely sold on any of the moral philosphies that we covered. Most of them were extremes, but also had a lot sparsely integrated strengths. The class was certainly an enlightenment. It taught me a tremendous deal about the very processes that we incorporate in our thinking. I learned to consider things from very different aspects. Above all, I came to the realization that morals are only as good as the justification that one can provide to substantiate them. In other words, I refuse to believe that any single act is intrinsically wrong just because it is anecdotally said to be 'wrong.'
Everyone may have their opinion of morality, but not everyone will be right. Take the muslim wackos. Their morality is that it is okay to blow themselves up, killing innocent people, etc... But it is wrong and evil no matter what. There is a universal morality that encompasses the important things (not talking about eating a frickin ding-dong--which should be illegal by the way) Now, question about the muslim wackos: A) Are they evil--cut and dry? B) Are they evil in our eyes, but you understand that they are good and righteous in their cultures eyes, which is not necesarily wrong because morality is subjective? So when I ask you the question about muslim wackos, and you have answered "B", your response should be, keeping with your rational,"Well, it depends on the frame of reference."
Why are they necessarily wrong? I won't argue whether there ultimately is a right or wrong, but what makes you assume that you are right & they are wrong?
Therein, sir, lies the rub. Example: Downloading illegal movies and music off of the Internet. You and I both know that is stealing. You and I think it's just fine. However, that doesn't mean it's not wrong. If a man came into your house and stole your computer, you'd feel "wronged", even though you just finished downloading a piece of software that a lot of people spent a lot of time working on and felt no qualms about it. Name a person that wouldn't mind having their sacred stuff stolen from them. Example: Abortion. A teenage girl might think there is nothing wrong with killing her fetus, and wants to get the easy way out.... then goes ahead with it only to feel emptiness and despair for the rest of her life. Name a person that would enjoy being killed or tortured. Again, it doesn't matter what person A or B thinks about their personal actions, there are still concrete rights and wrongs. They aren't far-reaching in the sense that some people's morals say "don't drink" and others say "don't dance", I am speaking about basic rights and wrongs.
Because the foundation of morality is the self-preservation of one self (rational self-interest), and then one's happiness. Obviously, people who do not respect the life's of others, or their own life, will not respect yours. People who attempt to throw a world into chaos and fear and terror, may negatively affect you (economics). Do you agree that the self-preservation of one self is at the core of morality?
Not especially. Perhaps morality stemed from self-preservation (ie. society created morals so that all could live a better life). However, your philosophy assumes & indeed necessitates that life is sacred. This means your definition is based on your opinion that life is sacred. Not everyone believes as such & thus, morality is subjective. Setting yourself on fire isn't immoral if you don't believe in the sanctity of life.
The flaw in this argument is the lack of a definite boundary of 'sacred.' A computer may be sacred to you, but not Bill Gates. Further, there are things that you would consider 'more sacred' than others, based on no real quantifiable criteria. 'Sacred', as well as its various degrees, are subjective.
So for example, there is this country named Bloodbath, which does not value human life. People point and laugh as innocents get buthered for sport. "Those people of Bloodbath are evil, immoral," Frogleg says, across the border in his country of Rand. "Hold on now," CParso replies. "To you and I they are immoral, but according to their morality they are acting morally." "So which morality is correct?" Frogleg asks, bewildered. "Well, to each, each is correct" "So both are right?" "Yes." Years later, when the Bloodbathians are running out of people to kill, they pour over the border and round up a bunch of Randians (which includes CParso and his family), and bring them back to Bloodbath. Frogleg, however, knowing that they were a truly evil bunch, had prepared in advance. He led an army into Bloodbath. And then there was no more Bloodbath.
