Because you can't reduce morality to a formula that you can test by experiment, it's just not possible.
You are applying a value judgement to what is right and what is wrong.
You are one who really should know the difference as you were in the Army.
Do you believe that it is an objective morality that murder is wrong ?
If so, then you should never have joined the Army because you could be expected to murder someone in the course of your duty.
But then you add ifs and buts that justify breaking an objectively moral rule. Your objective morality becomes subjective and therefore the objective morality most likely did not exist in the first place.
I refer you to the rationalwiki quote I posted before.
That's a bit unfair though.
VC and most soldiers are idealists... they joint to serve their country and protect its people and value.
Just sometime, or often, such beliefs are taken advantage of by warmongers.
Because you can't reduce morality to a formula that you can test by experiment, it's just not possible.
.
You are applying a value judgement to what is right and what is wrong.
You are one who really should know the difference as you were in the Army.
Do you believe that it is an objective morality that murder is wrong ?
If so, then you should never have joined the Army because you could be expected to murder someone in the course of your duty.
But then you add ifs and buts that justify breaking an objectively moral rule.
Your objective morality becomes subjective and therefore the objective morality most likely did not exist in the first place.
I'm not questioning in any way the value of VC's service to the country, I just don't agree with the way he defines morality.
Nope, the most moral option always exists whether we understand it or not.
But yes, the things that we would put under the "Murder" label would be immoral, But no "Killing" is not always immoral.
If we don't understand it then it has no relevance to our current existence.
.
That is splitting hairs. Killing with intent to kill is what all armies do. The same as murder.
People make a value judgement that the enemy's lives are worth less than their own. Subjective
I'm not questioning in any way the value of VC's service to the country, I just don't agree with the way he defines morality.
Spoken like someone with no understanding of modern armies and modern soldiering.
When a police officer shoots and kills to defend himself or someone it is his duty to protect is it murder?
If a person killed another terminally ill person as part of a voluntary euthanasia situation would it be murder?
I tend to agree that human understanding of morality is largely subjective and informed through the context of their life experience and/or ideologies.
To my understanding the existence of an objective morality, which can be articulated in absolute terms, remains unproven.
However, the absence of proof, cannot automatically be assumed to equate to proof of absence.
Can morality be proven to only exist subjectively? Yet again, absence of proof doesn't equate to proof of absence.
I think all we need to know about morality and how to carry out lies in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you wish them done unto you.
That rule tend to have been held up by all religion and teachers as a virtue.
...
Many,myself included, have admiration for that rule, and I am heartened by the fact that it seems to be recognised across a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions.
Efforts are being made to differentiate amorality from morality. Thus far those efforts appear to be falling a long way short of their intended goal.
If one cannot discern the existence of morality in anything other than a subjective context, and the same is then said of amorality, then the dividing line becomes so blurry that both appear to be, at best, manifestations of subjective morality.
It seems to me that those who believe in objective morality must also believe in the existence of God, because otherwise who put these immutable morals into existence ?
VC seems to be destroying his own atheist principles. If morals are determined by man (subjective) then man has freedom of choice and God is less likely to exist. On the other hand if morals are eternal and immutable (objective), then how did these morals arise ?
I'd be interested to hear an answer to that.
What is it about God that makes Her objective?
And how would this God be within Her moral rights to deny Her progeny freedom of choice?
And if God is truly objective, what if man is God?
The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?
I can't see that the other questions have much relevance to this discussion.
Many,myself included, have admiration for that rule, and I am heartened by the fact that it seems to be recognised across a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions.
Efforts are being made to differentiate amorality from morality. Thus far those efforts appear to be falling a long way short of their intended goal.
If one cannot discern the existence of morality in anything other than a subjective context, and the same is then said of amorality, then the dividing line becomes so blurry that both appear to be, at best, manifestations of subjective morality.
The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?
I can't see that the other questions have much relevance to this discussion.
True. I'm not denying that murder is sometimes justified, .
People who have committed euthanasia have been charged with murder.
Someone has made a subjective judgement that murder is legal in this circumstance,
It seems to me that those who believe in objective morality must also believe in the existence of God, because otherwise who put these immutable morals into existence ?
.
The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?
.
If morals are determined by man (subjective) then man has freedom of choice and God is less likely to exist. On the other hand if morals are eternal and immutable (objective), then how did these morals arise ?
I.
No one, the most moral choice is the one that has the best outcome for the well being of the thinking creatures involved, It's not based on a command of a god.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?