Nicki wrote:Kenny wrote:Mrs K wrote:Killer: "Correction, I'm a genetically determined man with a predisposition toward aggression: Killing is in my genes."
Just because killing is in your genes doesn’t justify doing it! That’s what animals do; us humans are better than that… unless we are mentally sick.
Ken
What makes 'not killing' better than 'killing'? You might base it on what's helpful and not hurtful to your neighbour, but other people might have different opinions.
Exactly. That is the crux of the disagreement I’ve been having with everybody with the objective vs subjective morality debate.
Everybody here (objective moralists) maintains that there is something beyond human opinion that determines right or wrong.
I (the subjective moralist) maintain that there is nothing beyond human opinion that determines right or wrong; whether it be rape, generosity, genocide, empathy, or torture; it’s all based upon human opinion, nothing more.
I have also maintained that the idea that morality is objective is a theistic position because objective morality requires a single moral base, and all I see are various theists claiming their deity of choice as this single moral base; Jack will clam his Deity as the single moral base, Jill will claim her Deity as the single moral base, John and Joanne each piping in claiming their Deities of choice as the single moral base, so you have 4 different theists each claiming a different single moral base.
I’ve maintained this is basically “
kickin the can one step further down the road” because instead of one person claiming behavior “X” is right and the other person saying “X” is wrong, and the two people going around and around debating the issue, you have one person saying his Deity says “X” is right and the other claiming his Deity saying it is wrong, and the two people going around and around debating the issue with each other.
I have also maintained the unfortunate consequence of believing morality is objective, as the believer is less likely to be swayed that his moral position is wrong if he feels his morals are backed up by a
beyond human single moral base. In other words, if he says behavior “X” is right according to his single moral base, and you disagree with behavior “X”, he is less likely to consider the possibility that he might be wrong considering this issue, that the issue is not up for discussion; after all he and you are just human; but his single moral base is
beyond human.
Where as if he believe morality were subjective, that right and wrong originates from human thought, because both you and he as humans are both equal, you can have a discussion in an attempt to sway one another on the issue.
Anyway, that is the crux of the argument I’ve been having with everybody here concerning the objective vs subjective morality debate.
Excuse my long wind, and thanx for listening
Ken