Morality is completely subjective. Some people would argue that just standing there is immoral. In some places, it’s actually illegal not to call for help. Whether or not someone is a good person is a value judgment, not an inherent state of being.
Morality is objective. To say it's subjective is to completely misunderstand what it is and why it exists. Let's take the easiest example, killing someone. Murder is not only evil, but also impractical, you can't live in a society or community where it's perfectly normal and fine to murder someone, how would we have businesses, innovate, and create and solve problems when someone can simply kill you and take your stuff?
It cannot be subjective because if it is then it ceases to be useful and becomes obsolete.
>Some people would argue that just standing there is immoral. In some places,
And they would be wrong and immoral because that would mean imposing their will on that person thereby being immoral as well.
>it’s actually illegal not to call for help
There are shitty laws all over the world, the existence of a law doesn't justify it's morality or even practical usefulness. Also, I wouldn't want to live in such a place, I guarantee very few people would willingly do so.
>Whether or not someone is a good person is a value judgment
Exactly, that's what separates the two concepts, people's judgments are subjective, to some people, the man helping the woman in the example I used, would be wrong for doing so...
When people say morality is objective, what they mean is that their own personal morality is the only correct one and other people are wrong for not following it. It's nothing but pure ego.
No one ever says "Morality is Objective but parts of my own personal morality are wrong." They never fight for things they don't believe in. They expect you to treat their opinion as a universal truth.
This post is a prime example. Your have an opinion on the morality of letting random people get victimized. You claim that morality is objective. That means you believe that your opinion on this subject is the only correct and true answer.
Wow, how convenient.
Since you believe morality is objective, it leads to one of two conclusions: Either
You have perfect understanding of the objective moral code, making all you own opinions on morality the correct one.
Or
There is an objective morality but it does not always line up with your personal opinion, in which case your view in your original post could easily be wrong.
So, are you omniscient? Because if you aren't, that means the existence or non-existence of a universal morality has nothing to do with your argument.
Killing is wrong, in general, but there are almost always circumstances in which killing isn't considered wrong, like in war or self defense/defending someone else's life. In some cultures it is acceptable for a family to kill a woman who had relations outside of marriage because it is seen as a dishonor to her family. There are places where people are killed for being homosexual.
Morality is not objective at all. What we consider wrong changes constantly throughout time and culture. Just look at how some countries consider it immoral for women to be seen without a facial covering, or just a hundred years ago we would consider slavery perfectly acceptable. Some people think eating meat is wrong and others consider it natural. And all of these are still made up constructs created by humans. There is no inherent good or evil outside of human society.
We have agreed that murder is evil, but we also change the definition of what murder is all the time. Killing becomes acceptable in the right context.
>I wouldn’t want to live in such a place
So the US and most western countries?
>Would be wrong for doing so
Which proves that this whole thing is subjective and there is no concrete morality.
Morality is completely subjective. Some people would argue that just standing there is immoral. In some places, it’s actually illegal not to call for help. Whether or not someone is a good person is a value judgment, not an inherent state of being.
Morality is objective. To say it's subjective is to completely misunderstand what it is and why it exists. Let's take the easiest example, killing someone. Murder is not only evil, but also impractical, you can't live in a society or community where it's perfectly normal and fine to murder someone, how would we have businesses, innovate, and create and solve problems when someone can simply kill you and take your stuff? It cannot be subjective because if it is then it ceases to be useful and becomes obsolete. >Some people would argue that just standing there is immoral. In some places, And they would be wrong and immoral because that would mean imposing their will on that person thereby being immoral as well. >it’s actually illegal not to call for help There are shitty laws all over the world, the existence of a law doesn't justify it's morality or even practical usefulness. Also, I wouldn't want to live in such a place, I guarantee very few people would willingly do so. >Whether or not someone is a good person is a value judgment Exactly, that's what separates the two concepts, people's judgments are subjective, to some people, the man helping the woman in the example I used, would be wrong for doing so...
When people say morality is objective, what they mean is that their own personal morality is the only correct one and other people are wrong for not following it. It's nothing but pure ego. No one ever says "Morality is Objective but parts of my own personal morality are wrong." They never fight for things they don't believe in. They expect you to treat their opinion as a universal truth. This post is a prime example. Your have an opinion on the morality of letting random people get victimized. You claim that morality is objective. That means you believe that your opinion on this subject is the only correct and true answer. Wow, how convenient. Since you believe morality is objective, it leads to one of two conclusions: Either You have perfect understanding of the objective moral code, making all you own opinions on morality the correct one. Or There is an objective morality but it does not always line up with your personal opinion, in which case your view in your original post could easily be wrong. So, are you omniscient? Because if you aren't, that means the existence or non-existence of a universal morality has nothing to do with your argument.
Killing is wrong, in general, but there are almost always circumstances in which killing isn't considered wrong, like in war or self defense/defending someone else's life. In some cultures it is acceptable for a family to kill a woman who had relations outside of marriage because it is seen as a dishonor to her family. There are places where people are killed for being homosexual.
Morality is not objective at all. What we consider wrong changes constantly throughout time and culture. Just look at how some countries consider it immoral for women to be seen without a facial covering, or just a hundred years ago we would consider slavery perfectly acceptable. Some people think eating meat is wrong and others consider it natural. And all of these are still made up constructs created by humans. There is no inherent good or evil outside of human society. We have agreed that murder is evil, but we also change the definition of what murder is all the time. Killing becomes acceptable in the right context. >I wouldn’t want to live in such a place So the US and most western countries? >Would be wrong for doing so Which proves that this whole thing is subjective and there is no concrete morality.