What does you leading an army into that place have to do with morality? You seem to be confusing morality with preservation of freedom. Laws against things like murder, theft, rape, etc aren't in place because they're immoral. They are enacted because these actions impose on the personal freedoms of other individuals. The purpose of laws is to ensure order within civilization, not to ensure that every individual is acting 'morally'. Of couse, there is plenty of overlap. I agree that murder is immoral. Maybe someone else doesn't. So then, murder is made illegal because it imposes on someone elses freedom to exist. Similarly, theft, while I acknowledge that it is immoral, is illegal because it imposes on someone elses right to property. Someone who steals food to feed their family believes that they are doing the right thing. Similarly, a drug addict who steals to feed their habit is convinced that they are doing the right thing. Now, you could also argue that 'preservation of freedom' is a moral in itself. But what separates that from other moral criteria is that every person is born with personal freedom. Which leads me to my next point... You might say that the drug addict an extreme case, and it is. But also consider the sickos who sincerely don't believe that murder is 'wrong'. Some individuals lack the rationale to make that distinction. Thus, to them, they are not acting immorally. That is, ultimately, what proves morality as a subjective issue. If you argue that morality is based on fact, rather than subjectivity, you must also argue that each individual capable of violating moral principles possesses the rationale to make that determination.
now that is a whole different discussion, but i dont really believe it is wrong to steal most forms of information. i dont think stealing is always wrong. i think tangible items are different than ones and zeros when it comes to stealing, because of their relative scarcity. i actually feel like it is a net positive for society to steal music. i would be happy to see the all of the music companies go bankrupt. so she she feels bad, she shouldnt have had an abortion if she is emotionally weak. i still dont get how i am supposed to figure out that it was immoral what she did. if i had been aborted i dont imagine i would care. thats pretty much the same as never being concieved. a more accurate statement is "according to me there are concrete rights and wrongs". i still see no reason why i should agree with your system of rights and wrongs over my own. correct. i definitely do not think life is inherently sacred. right, i know they think it is moral to suicide bomb us. i wont argue that with them. the only solution is to kill them first. my version of morality is often at odds with others. i hope my version of subjective morality wins out. correct, i understand that from their perspective they are righteous. they love to martyr themselves. is that immoral? i know i dont like it, and i want to kill them, but they are just as certain it is what god wants. all of us here happen to agree with me on this one and want them dead before they kill us. but plenty of people disagree and we have no way to figure which of us is right, and that is what makes it subjective. i feel like we are arguing over the definition of the word subjective. obviously a cheeseburger tastes better than poop. but if a guy liked the taste of poop better than anything, he is still only wrong according to my subjective view of what is better. who am i to tell him poop tastes better? some things are just up to the person. subjective questions only have answers according to who you are asking, not universal answers. i cant believe i am explaining this. absolutely not. i think suicide and other forms of self destruction are perfectly rational thing for people to do. who am i to tell you what you enjoy? if it pleases you to snort cocaine 24 hours a day until you die, go ahead, be my guest. i am not trying to impose my will upon you.
The above is patently absurd. Example: A camp fire is burning, yet some idiot does not possess the rationale to determine that fire burns. But the fact that fire burns is not subjective. When the idiot places his hand in the fire it will burn him. The distinction between good and evil is objective. A rational person holds his life sacred, and so he holds other humans lifes sacred. And so begins the good and the moral. morality Anoun1 morality concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
You say that, but i bet for the most part you act like it is sacred. It's probably what you are most concerned with, and take best care of. I do admit though, i need a better proof of my fundamental assertion that one's life is sacred, to a rational person.
Again, burning yourself isn't necessarily evil or a bad thing. You are assuming absolutes based off your own beliefs. If a person enjoys being burned or pain, then there action of going into the fire is moral.
Again, you are confusing the issue. What does this have to do with morality? If the 'idiot' somehow lacks the cognitive ability to be conditioned to the fire burning his hand, you simply cannot hold it against him if he does it again. Ok, then. I think John Ashcroft is evil. A lot of people swear that John Kerry is evil. Does that make them both true, or either assertion objective? NO! Saddam Hussein probably doesn't think that he's evil. Get it? You specifically said a rational person. I can only assume that it was in response to my claim about the link between reason and morality. Therefore, you just basically concieded that you agree with it. Let's review what I said: If you argue that morality is based on fact, rather than subjectivity, you must also argue that each individual capable of violating moral principles possesses the rationale to make that determination. This proves absolutely nothing in the way of subjective vs objective. Nowhere in that definition is there any indication of absolute truth on either side of right or wrong.
okay, sounds like many people think that the distinction between good and evil is subjective. I do not. I think those distinctions are absolute, and have the balls to label a spade a spade--sweepingly, and with conviction. I call things as they are, and what they are does not change with POV.
I see where you are coming from. I make my own decisions about what is moral & what isn't moral and am willing to say whether something is wrong or not. I say that that bastards blowing up people in the middle east are evil. I just don't blindly believe that the way I think about it is the only way, or the absolute right way. People are allowed to have differing opinions on it, and until their opinions affect me I could care less.
if my best friend had a wife and kids and they all died in a cra crash, and he felt like he had nothing live for, and was going to basically weep the rest of the way through his miserable life, and he wanted to kill himself, i would think that was a rational decision. because what he thinks is worth living for or not living for is his decision. subjective. i think you are close to understanding. you can mark the end of the "blind admiration of objectivism" phase of your life. oops, that is a step backward. baby steps.
