Values can't be objective part 2

[Lucis_Trust]

It illogical if logic is to preserve life, or if you don’t want people to eat your children. If we don’t use that logic and people decided to eat each other it would cause great suffering and if applied universally would bring humanity to an end. Hence the universal application of either approach gives us the objective principle or rule.

Those are some big ifs for some people.

You can do as you wish as an individual, given that its universal application doesn’t stop others from doing what they want [as above]. So e.g. if you want to listen to different music, or like different art to me etc, there is no problem.

Unless you’re a king, or a dictator, you don’t have the power to choose for everyone, only yourself. Just because I choose to be a banker, doesn’t mean everyone is going to. So should none of us be bankers then, because we’d all starve? Who’s gonna farm the fields?

[Amorphos]

Those are some big ifs for some people.

Its only if’s if you don’t consider the universal outcomes, however it is they which give us the objective values Imho.

Unless you’re a king, or a dictator, you don’t have the power to choose for everyone, only yourself.

Indeed, that’s the whole point right there.

Just because I choose to be a banker, doesn’t mean everyone is going to. So should none of us be bankers then, because we’d all starve? Who’s gonna farm the fields?

I don’t know why we’d all starve if there were no bankers, but I take it that you are thinking that someone has to dictate to others? People mostly want to do what they are doing, farmers may get a rough deal because common agricultural policy doesn’t allow them to make a lot of money from products we all need, but if others/the state didn’t get involved in their business, then it would be good for them.

[TheBerto]

@Lucis Trust

You can do as you wish as an individual, given that its universal application doesn’t stop others from doing what they want [as above]. So e.g. if you want to listen to different music, or like different art to me etc, there is no problem.

Unless you’re a king, or a dictator, you don’t have the power to choose for everyone, only yourself. Just because I choose to be a banker, doesn’t mean everyone is going to. So should none of us be bankers then, because we’d all starve? Who’s gonna farm the fields?

Hmm this might be a little off-topic but isn’t quetzalcoatl just trying to approach a moral ground that allows society to function as a whole?

Laws are there to enforce something onto people. For example, It is Illegal to kill someone unless it’s in self-defense. And you can’t kill someone just because they hit you. That would be excessive force. You can see that killing is not always wrong. And that killing in self-defense isn’t always right. But by combining all of these aspect together we can get a law that will fit most situations. Killing is wrong unless it’s done for the purpose of protecting your life, meaning your life has to be in danger for self-defense to be used as an excuse for killing someone. And that someone has to be directly related to fact that your life is in danger. Morals I agree are subjective, so in order to meet the needs of everyone we have to create rules that meet the need of the most. I think this is why democracy is supposed to work perfectly. (although it doesn’t) As someone once pointed out, your education on the subject should deffinitely relate to how the vote is counted. But in all situations the need of the most should be included.