IMO, Morality is 95% subjective, what counts as a positive moral construct to some or one person is different from others. There’s no factuality behind any of it. Genetics play a role, but we base most of our morals off of our environment and those around us, especially in heavily populated areas or rural areas. Moral “truths” aren’t “truth” to others, and cannot be proven as a legitimate fact. I do understand what you’re saying, and agree on a few levels but I don’t understand how fact and opinion became so distorted. It just seems like it’s becoming ridiculous with how so much of our “facts” are just based off of opinions and feelings. Facts are irrefutable.
Glittering_Rub9385 t1_ismb6x3 wrote
Reply to Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
IMO, Morality is 95% subjective, what counts as a positive moral construct to some or one person is different from others. There’s no factuality behind any of it. Genetics play a role, but we base most of our morals off of our environment and those around us, especially in heavily populated areas or rural areas. Moral “truths” aren’t “truth” to others, and cannot be proven as a legitimate fact. I do understand what you’re saying, and agree on a few levels but I don’t understand how fact and opinion became so distorted. It just seems like it’s becoming ridiculous with how so much of our “facts” are just based off of opinions and feelings. Facts are irrefutable.