Schulze_II26 t1_iujhhwg wrote
People with no moral basis in religion conclude that morality is subjective. Which is wrong, it is very objective. No society or people past or present has ever tolerated a thief for example. No society has ever tolerated a murderer. There are things, more than the two examples I give, that are wrong universally whether people in this day tolerate them or not. And some people past and present tolerate other evils. That doesn’t change what they are.
Top-Royal6249 t1_iujoete wrote
> People with no moral basis in religion conclude that morality is subjective. Which is wrong, it is very objective. No society or people past or present has ever tolerated a thief for example.
Thieves tolerate thieves. There are entire organizations of organized thieves.
I don't think you know what the terms "subjective" and "objective" mean. Even if it were true that all humans find thievery to be wrong, that still doesn't make it an issue of objectivity.
untakenu t1_iujk2pu wrote
>No society has ever tolerated a murderer
Murder is the unlawful killing of someone. But the law, which is often guided by religious morality has been, and still is, widely different from place to place.
Murder means different things to those of different religious/cultural moral structures, therefore showing clear moral subjectivity.
Not to mention stuff like some cultures giving women equal treatment and others strictly controlling and limiting their abilities.
Moral objectivity only exists from a very, very wide angle for broad subjects with little nuance.
Schulze_II26 t1_iujmnhj wrote
We’re not talking about laws and enforcement, you just agreed with me that murder is the unlawful killing of someone, and that no society has tolerated it because they draft laws around it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments