Just like the example with the gunman above, situations you guys always ignore, when it comes to life and death (and even severe injury) there are exceptions. There's nothing illogical or immoral about it.
The individual is irrelevant, as an individual alone has no need or use for morality. Morality is, by nature and logic, a social construct.
I think that vantage, though with merit, lacks breadth of perspective.
The only thing lacking perspective is your argument. What good does morality do for a person who is entirely alone? Without society, morality loses all purpose and meaning. A sociopath that lacks empathy is alone and effectively outside any moral system that any society might establish; that's why using sociopaths for support in an argument about morality is nonsense.
The individual is irrelevant, as an individual alone has no need or use for morality. Morality is, by nature and logic, a social construct.
Morality, laws, values, freedoms and rights are built around one concept, fairness.
Yeah, I looked it up in Black's, afterward.The term theft is not simply a legal term like murder.
Obviously, people disagree on moral issues, otherwise we would not be having this conversation. It doesn't mean, however, that objective morality does not exist. It simply means that some people discover and accept it, others discover and reject, still others have no clue what to look for or why look at all...
A threat? I could take that to some pretty gruesome but very logical conclusions. That's how wars of invasion get started.That is so dishonest. When someone poses a immediate imminent threat to your life it is of course moral to remove that threat. That has really nothing at all to do with the poor man example.
Yeah, I looked it up in Black's, afterward.
I don't mean to be rude, but everyone knows that each person has their own opinions about what is and isn't moral. It goes without saying, but it doesn't address the OP or the poll.
There is no higher power or natural law that defines morality.
I couldn't disagree more. "Fairness" is entirely in the eye of beholder. The story of Cain and Able is all about "fairness": Cain thought it is terribly unfair that his crops fail, and his brother's herds are thriving.
The one concept is the freedom of choice, not "fairness".
If someone or group is practicing tyranny and oppression over you because they believe that's fair you'd have no freedom of choice..
Laws on based on fair and equitable treatment.
Exactly. Just like Cain had killed Abel out of "fairness", and denied him his choice to stay alive. "Fairness" is a lousy guide.
are tyrannical and oppressive, if they deny the freedom of choice.
Cain killed Abel out of envy, not lack of opportunity.
there can be no freedom, unless there are laws protecting peoples rights.
And for how many people "fairness" and "envy" are one and the same?
Absolutely. But laws based on the (inherently subjective) "fairness" will not protect people's rights - they will enable envy, vengeance, lust for power and other such nice things.
You're confusing fairness with everything being equal.
There is only one God.
I did want an answer, and thank you for answering.You asked the question about personal morals. If you didn't want an answer then why did you ask?!?
I wouldn't say that they are few and far between, especially if you're talking about people not doing things that are perfectly legal, because it goes against their personal morals. There are also examples of people breaking the law.It is not a matter of losing. Law was never in a position to have to make a decision. If one or the other would have taken action to dissolve the marriage Law would have. This was an example of two people deciding for whatever reason to stand pat and hold their hands. I did though in a different post make this point. Someone had said if a poor person steals food or stays inside a building that is off limits to survive and is arrested no one really wants to see this person punished. A judge may well decide to show leniency and not punish this person. He may back off the strict letter of the law in favor of his personal feelings. In a case such as this it gives the appearance that Law lost. It is really not the case. It is a personal decision maybe wrongly given by a judge. So there may well be some exceptions but they are few and far between. Thanks
Merely by creating the poll and asking the question, I acknowledged that everyone has their own opinions about morality. This is analogous to asking about subjective and objective beauty. The existence of subjective beauty, doesn't guarantee that objective beauty doesn't exist. We know that subjective morality exists, but what about objective morality?It certainly does address it. That is my belief about what morality is. A person's individual beliefs about what sort of behavior is acceptable and what isn't. If we're speaking of morals on the scale of a society, it is simply a gestalt of the moral views of the individuals that make up that society.
.....what about objective morality?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?