Morals Are Completely Subjective

[Nineveh]

You know what is odd? We with out really meaning to, make up our own standard of what is evil. We can see this by looking at your statement about the rape victim. You added the condition of 3 year old and comatose. As if that would make it even more heinous. It is a tragidy no matter. I'm not saying you don't know that, I was just pointing out how people tend to think.

I took an event of the day that should be obvious to anyone as an example. The only obvious thing is... even such an extreme event can be "it's wrong for me" to some. Sad.

 

[amosman]

I took an event of the day that should be obvious to anyone as an example. The only obvious thing is... even such an extreme event can be "it's wrong for me" to some. Sad.

Sorry I don't follow what you are saying. But no matter. I'm not trying to pick a fight.

 

[Nineveh]

Sorry I don't follow what you are saying. But no matter. I'm not trying to pick a fight.

I didn't think you were. What you considered "making up" my "own standard of evil" to make rape "more heinous" was merely using an event of the day that should have been simple for anyone to be able to label "wrong", "evil", and "immoral" without qualifications such as "but only for me" tacked on. I guess this goes to prove some folks will stoop to any level to justify "completely subjective morals". Do you follow?

 

[amosman]

I didn't think you were. What you considered "making up" my "own standard of evil" to make rape "more heinous" was merely using an event of the day that should have been simple for anyone to be able to label "wrong", "evil", and "immoral" without qualifications such as "but only for me" tacked on. I guess this goes to prove some folks will stoop to any level to justify "completely subjective morals". Do you follow?

I think so.

 

[Just Tom]

Morals are not absolute, by which you could reasonably say they are situational. Not sure about subjective, though.

Are you absolutely sure?

 

[icilian fenner]

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

Completely: having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full

Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual

I cannot see that by your own expanding on your point you would not have understood the position of freedomcry, even if (as you believe in a higher standard) you disagreed.

[a person's] principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong [are] entirely [due to] the characteristic of [said] individual.

IF there is no higher standard against which to measure this 'distinction between right and wrong', then the above statement must be true, do you agree?.

Assuming you agree, may I put to you that humans are effected by a number of factors.

1. Our Motivations: Humans act in a way they believe will escape pain and bring happiness. Do you agree?

2.Most humans have a set of characteristics biologically hardwired - What they find Gratifying and what they find hurtful. Do you agree?

3. What we have come to believe through intellectual pursuits - This modifies what we apply our 'gratification and hurtfulness' hardwire to. For instance, someone who believes that animals are feel as humans, and are our equals, will apply the same compassion to an animal as a human. But, contrarily, one who believes they are a foodstuff, and ought to be eaten and not considered equal is sure not to extend such compassion. Do you agree?



Everything, I posit, in our behavior is a combination of these things: Our different hardwired feelings, our different beliefs, and how we can aviod pain and gain happiness.

Im too tired to continue this really crap explanation. Most of you out there can take this to it's logical consequence.
If it's too badly written, I'll have to restate it when its not 4:44 am :help: