Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 1:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 12:47 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 11:33 am
Can you explain what you mean by that?
Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all
objectively moral.
As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms.
Prove that, the way I've showed that Subjectivism is irrational. Show that it's not even
possible for morality to be objective. Never mind whether it is, or it isn't: show that it
could not be, and show that because it's "a contradiction in terms."
It just tells us that some people call all kinds of stuff -- including slavery, theft, wife-beating, murder and child abuse, to name a few examples -- 'moral.' And many of them assert that their own 'morality' is the universal, true one.
Yes, and it is easy to see why some people regard the wrongness of those things as objective truth,...
Yes, it is. But are you saying that you don't?
...but when we think of some other so called immoral issues, such as "fornication" and homosexuality, where there is no human suffering as a consequence, things don't look as clear cut.
That's why moral debates need to be had. It's also why those who misunderstand Christian ethics wrongly suppose that it's a mere matter of "obedience to commandments," just as you assumed. But it's not. To have a principle is not to say that no decisions about application remain to be thought out. It's not to say that all problems are solved. It's not to say that everything is clear as crystal. But it is to say that behind the debate that must continue over the application of the ethics, there is a firm principle to guide the discussion.
So, for example, you and I can disagree over whether abortion is murder. I'm certain it is. You may be confident it's not. But one of us will be right, because a baby is going to be killed; and that, we both know. Furthermore, you and I can agree on the principle that murdering people (whomever we consider "people" to be) is morally reprehensible. Thus, our disagreement on the application of the principle is properly informed by a common value: the value of human life. And you and I can debate how to actualize that principle, but we're not going to start thinking that, say, outright infanticide or genocide are okay, so long as we both recognize the fundamental value of life, as encoded in the dictum, "Thou shalt not murder."
But without such an agreement, such an objective value, you and I can't even begin the ethical debate
over application: because in that case, there's no principle that we hold in common to which either of us can even allude in our conversation. How do you debate the murder issue with somebody who thinks murder is just fine?
If someone were to say to me, "it is a self evident truth that slavery is wrong", I would only argue with him if it were being said on a philosophy forum, but were he to say the same thing about sex outside of marriage, I would probably call him an idiot, unless he was much bigger than me.
And I might point out that while slavery is a great evil, extramarital sex isn't made good by that fact. And I dare say that anybody who has experience a cheating spouse will take some time to figure out which is more humanly painful.
But then, you say she'd only be an idiot.
