You weren’t mistaken at all. She made a very simple statement that clearly refutes yours. You mutter on and on about masses of people making things moral. She said mob rule doesn’t set forth morality.
Morals are not subjective. Rights are not subjective. The can’t be because reality is not subjective. What is, is. People may label things differently, but that doesn’t change the reality of an object. My favorite: If society said it was OK to rape your sister, would that be moral because it’s a societal norm? Good luck with that.
The majority defines morality in the particular society they live in. It seems that you’ve never experienced another culture/society. Morals are subjective. Consent is not the grounds for morals, which is what you seem to be arguing for. There have been cases of people murdering/cannibalizing each other by consent. Does that make it moral? Or does it make it moral for them? If it’s moral for them, then morals are subjective. I’ve explained my definition of taboo and morals for the sake of argument. I asked for a definition of morality in two questions: “is it that I can’t impose my idea of morals on those who don’t share them? Or is it what is detrimental to society?”. So what is morality?
Reality is subjective, physicality is not. I see the background of this board as your green but your green is my red. PROVE to me that it’s one color. Morals are man-made, how can they be objective? It’s already been discussed that your/western idea of morals have a Christian base. The idea of morals from an islamic point of view prevents women from arousing men. If a woman were to go out with a short skirt and her bra, she’s causing temptation without consent from the man. The man has no choice in seeing her and being aroused (what to do about temptation is not the issue). A great deal of muslim women don’t see covering themselves up as a restriction, but on par with the western woman not going out naked. Do you really consider morality objective?
Reality is not subjective. The fact that you see red where I see green is an indication that you are color blind. Tests exist to prove the light refractivity of a certian color.
The fact that two people believe two different things does not mean they are both right when it is an issue of facts. It means one person is right and one person is wrong.
No, what some may consider to be moral is different. This doesn’t equate to the idea that morals are subjective.
I can think of situations where it would clearly be the case, yes. Of course, let’s stop for a moment because you use the word “murder” which by definition immoral. Let’s say killing instead. Then the scenarios would be something along the lines of the dying soldier in great pain or sacrificing yourself for food with the knowledge it may save those you love.
I’m sorry of I don’t get exactly what you’re asking here, although I’ll attempt to answer. There are only one set of morals that are right. They are based on rights. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks is moral. If someone thinks it is moral to kill someone, that alone doesn’t make it so. The situation does. Something being detrimental to society has no bearing on whether something is moral or not.
Sure. All we need is a tool that measures the amount of light reflected off of each surface. Something like a spectrograph. The spectrograph will say that it’s one color, thus proving we are using different labels to describe the same color.
Err pardon me, that was someone else that comment was being made to. I’m an atheist and I can gurantee that my view of morals is at odds with the majority of Christianity. Regardless, they can be objective because reality is objective. They may be flawed due to the amount of knowledge we have regarding a situation when prescribing morality to it, but that again doesn’t change what reality is.
OK. And what about this idea of morality makes it right or correct?
“Mob rule does not determine right and wrong”. Prove to me that your perception of red is my perception of red. Prove that your/my/anyone’s perception of red is absolute and ‘correct’. If I knew everything, do you think I’d know the tastiest food? Reality is subjective.
It does, in the society they live in.
It does. Your definition of morals is not the absolute definition of morals. It’s your definition.
I don’t see how that’s related. Use killing instead of murder in the consensual cannibals case. The scenario is the one I proposed. Does terminology define morality?
So rights are universal and objective then? “Anybody else”, I’m assuming there is somebody that determines the objectivity in these things then. Who is that? Is it you?
The spectrometer has nothing to do with the perception of colors. We are using the same labels to describe different colors.
It’s not about being an atheist or not, it’s a cultural giving. Atheism is an absence of belief in god, not cultural isolation. Your culture stems from a Christian base, therefore your morals, though not directly christian, have been influenced by it. An atheist in a muslim country would have different opinions on what is right and wrong, before the vast amount of cultural/information exchange. Even so, why are islamic/christian/zoroastrian/jewish/etc morals ‘objectively incorrect’ to your objective and universal morals?
My position on why it’s right in the context is clear. What about it makes it wrong or incorrect?
Once again, the chances of having a retarded child from first generation incest are not very high. It takes several generations of incest to result in retardation.
In this case, would it be immoral for two people who are carriers of a disease to have children? Such as…hemophelia…if both parents have the gene for it, would they be immoral to reproduce?
Mankind and all other species are the result of inbreeding. Nothing is more natural. The chances of mutation is near zero and related to environmental changes which drive the evoltuoion of the specie. Lame mating with lame is discouraged by nature.
Nobility have engaged in it for millenia. It is simply a middle class taboo.
Incest with close family members has been selected against, see; tooby/cosmides, incest-detection mechanisms for more. If two people grow up together in the same house (unrelateed boy/girl) they usually don’t engage in sexual relations, the mechanism apparently is somthing to do with co-residence and etc in youth.
Well, not to say that I personally adhere to the ethics that I’m surrounded by, but here in Alabama I think the consensus is that if it feels good, it is good.
I’m not reading the whole thread, just chiming in as a guy in Alabama. Stereotypically, incest is a major epidemic here. I’m not sure if it’s actually the case, but I don’t think that stereotypes just pop up out of nowhere.
This may be true to some extent among siblings, but not between parents, relatives and their off-spring.
It would be interesting to know what the modern statitsics are if the truth ever gets out of the closet. I would say in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. The great tragedy here, while the majority live with our heads buried in the sand, falls on those born to incest and who live a life in shame and anonymity.
