[quote]cram2012 wrote:
deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Ahh, but where your and my morality derive from could be two totally different places and lead us to two totally different assertions of what is moral and what isn’t. Hence the 9/11 attacks example used earlier and ergo, morality is subjective.
This line of reasoning is valid only if both of us agree that an absolute standard does not or can not exist. If on the other hand one of us does believe in an absolute standard, it allows an evaluation of the morality of an action based on that standard. If there is no absolute standard of morality, on what grounds can any person express outrage at any action another chooses?
going back to the common ground comment. The majority of people agree that Murder, Rape, ect is wrong. many belief systems would support this, as well as general common sense. but now lets move to concepts with more grey area:
Abortion, having sex before marriage, stealing as your last means of survival, ect… An “Absolute” belief systems would content this to be immoral, however, others would not, there is no right or wrong answer to these questions, and where we run into the “morality is subjective” statement. If someone told me that you are wrong for having sex before marriage, I would say great “blow me,” (no pun intended)
I dont agree, I am not right or wrong, thats just what I beleive. There exists no absolute truth for that question. if you are against it, its an easy solution, dont have sex before marriage. but my decisions do not impede on you as an individual.
However, when your actions or beliefs cause harm to another, most would agree this is wrong…hence a common ground and the reason laws are constructed…it benefits the most people, to implement those types of restrictions.
[/quote]
It’s not only valid if we agree there is no absolute truth (which I think we do?). It would be as much of a truism if one of us said morality is x, y & z only and I said in fact it was a, b & c only.
The fact we could interperate morality as two different things exemplifies its subjectivity. Now one of us could say ‘you are wrong and I am right because my morality is the Absolute’ but that does not change the belief, and the subsequent reasoning about the concept itself.
I was not implying that morality has no place, rather that much as one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, I cannot accept that I am by nature an immoral person because of the moral yardstick of another individual whose measurements differ from mine.
There IS no absolute truth, just varying moral yardsticks that individuals, faith or cultures use. Not a critical judgement - more an observation.
I, as something not of any religious persuasion, have a set of my own moral guidelines that I live by. Sometimes it’s a help and sometimes it’s a hinderance. But I abide by that sense of morals. If I have guilt ovr something it is because I didn’t live up to the standard of my own morality/ethics etc. That’s not to say I judge your morals or those of a muslim or jew to be better or worse, just different.
How dull a place the world would be if we all thought the same…
