Honestly this is a pretty big topic in philosophy. It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
Some people believe that not going to church each week is amoral, but some atheists think organized religion is amoral - who is right?
You and I can agree that murder is immoral. Would that stance change if we were on the jury for a murder trial and, if found guilty, the offender would be sentenced to death? If that doesn’t make us murderers, what makes the death penalty an appropriate and moral punishment?
Simply replying “false” indicates little to no thought on the subject or its nuance, and gives off strong “I’m 13 and this is deep” vibes
Reasonable person is a consistently used terminology in law. That is because objectivity can be achieved in certain circumstances. Say someone rapes, murders and necrophiles a person of any age. That is objectively an evil action in which any reasonable person would condem the perpetrator.
The law is meant to be fair (which is a separate can of worms, but the goal is fairness). It is not meant to be moral, though it often follows what people generally consider to be moral, like don’t rape or murder people.
And, honestly, using the “reasonable person” argument here goes against your point - it indicates that people with different morals exist, and therefore morality must be subjective.
I think all of these actions are morally wrong but could you tell me how they are objective and not subjective? A reasonable person seems to be a person and consequently fundamentally subjective.
Rape in any form, murder of an innocent, intentional torture of an organism strictly to give the torturers gratification and jay walking. All good examples of objectively morally evil actions.
But in the eyes of the one committing these crimes they may fully believe they are justified. There are people out there who have minds that are biologically different than the majority. These people may lack empathy or even find joy in hurting others and see no moral issue with it. Who is to definitively say that they are wrong? You would have to believe in a god or follow a religion of some kind for this argument to be sound. And there is plenty of evidence against the existence of a god(s).
Evil is itself a subjective term. It is not possible for anything to be objectively evil, even if every person who has ever lived agrees - which they definitely don’t. To be “objective” it must be measurable, supported by facts; “good” and “evil” are not.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
False
paranoid@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Honestly this is a pretty big topic in philosophy. It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
Some people believe that not going to church each week is amoral, but some atheists think organized religion is amoral - who is right?
You and I can agree that murder is immoral. Would that stance change if we were on the jury for a murder trial and, if found guilty, the offender would be sentenced to death? If that doesn’t make us murderers, what makes the death penalty an appropriate and moral punishment?
Simply replying “false” indicates little to no thought on the subject or its nuance, and gives off strong “I’m 13 and this is deep” vibes
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Reasonable person is a consistently used terminology in law. That is because objectivity can be achieved in certain circumstances. Say someone rapes, murders and necrophiles a person of any age. That is objectively an evil action in which any reasonable person would condem the perpetrator.
paranoid@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The law is meant to be fair (which is a separate can of worms, but the goal is fairness). It is not meant to be moral, though it often follows what people generally consider to be moral, like don’t rape or murder people.
And, honestly, using the “reasonable person” argument here goes against your point - it indicates that people with different morals exist, and therefore morality must be subjective.
cattywampas@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Who decides what a reasonable person is? Well a reasonable person, obviously.
Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
I think all of these actions are morally wrong but could you tell me how they are objective and not subjective? A reasonable person seems to be a person and consequently fundamentally subjective.
MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The word your looking for is intersubjective
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
False
MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Then you’re using a private definition of the word objective that isn’t really applicable to the real world
klugerama@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Prove it.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Rape in any form, murder of an innocent, intentional torture of an organism strictly to give the torturers gratification and jay walking. All good examples of objectively morally evil actions.
dlsloop@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
But in the eyes of the one committing these crimes they may fully believe they are justified. There are people out there who have minds that are biologically different than the majority. These people may lack empathy or even find joy in hurting others and see no moral issue with it. Who is to definitively say that they are wrong? You would have to believe in a god or follow a religion of some kind for this argument to be sound. And there is plenty of evidence against the existence of a god(s).
neoinvin@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
ducks
klugerama@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Evil is itself a subjective term. It is not possible for anything to be objectively evil, even if every person who has ever lived agrees - which they definitely don’t. To be “objective” it must be measurable, supported by facts; “good” and “evil” are not.