Well, there are good meta-ethical arguments for good\ evil. But we have no way to articulate it, save through phenomenology.
I will try a different tact and ask a scenario based question. Is it ever okay to rape and murder a toddler? What if society is okay with it? Raise the stakes, what if society demands it say for your first born child. Is there a situation where the rape and murder of a toddler is then acceptable?
By which standard should we answer?
In the confines of individual morality, no.
In the confines of societal morality, it would be okay. (Obviously).
To me? Absolutely.
Rather dark scenario though. Hope it has a point to justify existing lol. I mean I get the gotcha angle, but you can’t fight a definition.
I mean right best color. Not best color to you.
But you intellectually, on a non-emotional level, respect that others might have different opinions with no objective right or wrong? No, I doubt that.
See, I have a favorite color. But I don’t think it is the right favorite color.
Then we’re back to asking you to define ‘right’
I respect that others may HAVE different opinions. That in no way compels me to respect the opinion itself.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and some of them stink.
That has no impact on the topic?
Well no. I don’t respect green as a right favorite color. As long as we both understand they’re not inherently wrong/evil.
1 Like
The Bible is the word of God. Except some people take it literally. And some people ignore parts. And some people share parts and then say “wait a second God didn’t mean that. Let this man explain what he thinks God meant! He’s a God translator!”
Makes my head hurt.
Doesn’t this apply to relying on mankind for morality?
We have various opinions, so we must disregard it.
Which means you too respect others having the ability to have differing opinions, yet don’t have the respect the opinion itself.
Cheers for an agreement.
Well, I’m not morally obligated to do that
And technically we’ve always agreed. It takes faith to believe acts are inherently good or evil. That was my position.
I think we have to accept that morality is subjective individually.
As a society we come up with a pseudo objective morality, by which to judge other’s individual morality. It is not truly objective, and some societies suck, and do things like slavery. The societies that seem to suck the most, lack the question of “would I want this done to me”, and usually rely on an old religion to come up with their morals.
Yes. That’s the point. It says they are God’s words.
I never said you were lol. Nother weird missed gotcha moment I guess.
I promise we haven’t always agreed. It takes self awareness to believe acts are good or evil.
You should try not having faith prior to determining what people without faith are capable of. You’ll be shocked
Not the point. Is it moral or not, period?
It’s not a gotcha moment. It’s a matter of can you justify morality at the extremes. If you cannot, there may be a problem with the theory.
To me? Nope. Not moral at all.
Imo it’s the definitions. Nothing you or I can do about them except petition Webster’s to change it
I may have missed it. Definition of what?