Rogue Wink* Wink* :lol:
I believe Morality is Objective.
Many poster ask for proof of this. Typically these discussions start with a bait and switch.
Subjective Moralist will say - "Ok, you believe morality is objective? So is stealing wrong?"
The objective Moralist will say - "yes"
And then the SM will say - "What about a starving men and the brink of death standing before an unattended fruit stand?"
And then they segue into a discussion on how this proves subjective morality.
I don't believe this proves subjective morality, what I believe is it demonstrates a false set up for what morality encompasses. The notion that objective morality is absolute on any given action is false, Objective morality is nuanced and varies objectively not upon actions but upon circumstances.
So, no, Stealing is not Absolutely morally wrong, when dissected though, there are circumstances where stealing is absolutely, from an intellectually honest stand point, always wrong and always ok. The details matter.
For instance - I am a well to do man. I can afford a home, clothes, and food and currently possess a surplus of all of those things. If I come across a homeless man who has fallen asleep with a big mac in his lap and I take it. I believe there is never any rational explanation for why that action would possibly be morally permissible. So anyone who within that same context repeated my action will always be morally wrong.
However - If I am a starving homeless man and I have a starving daughter and a visibly wealthy individual has left his van open with groceries unattended and I choose to take their peanut butter, loaf of bread, and gallon of water. I have acted morally right, for the benefit of my own life, which I believe should be fought for at all cost, and that of my child. I believe in this context, objectively, anyone repeating this action is in the right.
Another example.
I am in the kitchen with a stranger who is unarmed, friendly, harmless, and otherwise simply not a threat. Suddenly I pick up a knife and kill the stranger for no reason other than joy. In this scenario, objectively, I am always morally wrong. I, again, do not believe there is any intellectually honest way to rationalize my actions in that context.
Now - The stranger is pointing a gun at me. And I manage to kill them with knife, don't ask how. I have again murdered the stranger, however, objectively, I have acted in a morally right way. I protected my life and didn't simply die. I had a right to do so and it was rational. This, I believe, is objectively morally right.
IN nutshell objective morality is based off of action and consequence and both of those are consistent in reality. It is not simply based of off broad definitions in which any involvement of that action is always wrong or always right.
Now a counter argument may be, well someone out there may not find killing someone for no reason wrong. I don't believe that is relevant though. If we approach this with logic and rational in mind, regardless of what in psycho may believe - we can assess the action and the consequence and come to a consistent consensus. Ruthless unprovoked killing can not be defended in an intellectual discussion it is always wrong, it is only when we tweak the circumstances do things change and they change objectively.
so am I wrong or am I right?