Comment

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

source

Sort:hotnew top

Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

source
- paranoid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Gimme a minute I have to go to sleep. But, you’re obviously wrong.
    
    source
    paranoid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Cool, sounds legit
    
    source
- cattywampas@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Who decides what a reasonable person is? Well a reasonable person, obviously.
  
  source