|
Post by lonewolf on Jun 1, 2012 13:37:35 GMT
of all the stupid things that you have ever said, that has to go down as the dumbest. NO ONE ever said that they observed any sexual behavior. damn, you're daft Jumbo, Mike is an educated man; he doesn't need an ignorant, uneducated, hillbilly like you to answer for him. Now, if you personally, Jumbo, are upset or disgusted by the sexual behavior of homosexuals then I can only surmise that you have an unhealthy obsession with them. That’s just an opinion of course. In fact, I remember reading about a case online where the good State of Georgia was prosecuting two adult male homosexuals for engaging in an act of sodomy. I thought at the time, and still do, that it was very strange and unhealthy for the citizenry of Georgia to have its collective attention focused on a man’s anus and to be concerned about what went up it. you are hardly a normal person. Yeah, but unlike you I’ve never dealt drugs. no, it's your lunatical thinking My lunatic thinking! Now that is a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 1, 2012 13:47:01 GMT
Why would you hold something a person has no control over against them? blacks have no choice in their skin color. homos DO have a choice between being normal or being a pervert They have a choice whether to act in accordance with their desires or not just like heterosexuals and everyone else (apart from maybe sex addicts). This is a separate issue from whether it is right or wrong to act on those desires. That is a matter of opinion and personal moral value system. If your morality is based on harm then there is nothing wrong with sexual acts between two members of the same sex, unless if one is underage or in another relationship or is being coerced etc. In fact homosexual sex could be argued to be less wrong than most heterosexual sex as unplanned pregnancies are not a risk. Of course if your value system is based on what you perceive to be perverse or unnatural then it is a different matter; though as with the above value system it is just a matter of subjective personal opinion not objective fact.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 1, 2012 14:28:25 GMT
I remember reading about a case online where the good State of Georgia was prosecuting two adult male homosexuals for engaging in an act of sodomy. I thought at the time, and still do, that it was very strange and unhealthy for the citizenry of Georgia to have its collective attention focused on a man’s anus and to be concerned about what went up it. That's a good point. I never really understand why people think it should be their concern what others do anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jun 1, 2012 19:13:21 GMT
I remember reading about a case online where the good State of Georgia was prosecuting two adult male homosexuals for engaging in an act of sodomy. I thought at the time, and still do, that it was very strange and unhealthy for the citizenry of Georgia to have its collective attention focused on a man’s anus and to be concerned about what went up it. That's a good point. I never really understand why people think it should be their concern what others do anyway. I think there are two responses to that statement, Hunny. In the first place it depends upon what kind of activity we are discussing. I certainly do NOT subscribe to the notion that how an individual chooses to behave is invariably a matter for them. Leaving aside obvious exceptions such as murder and rape (in both of which cases it is surely incumbent upon people to react in a morally correct manner rather than simply mouth the egotistical platitude that 'it's their business') I think that paedophilia and incest would also fall within those categories where an assertion of individual choice becomes simply an excuse for not adopting any kind of moral position. I suppose I had better make my own position of sexual morality clear since I have been misunderstood to a degree. I will begin by briefly responding to Lonewolf's comment before replying to what you have said and expressing my own opinions. In the first place I do not believe it is necessary to be a paedophile or to have observed paedophile activity to find it disgusting. Paedophilia, like incest, is a gross violation of trust. I find the whole idea of anal intercourse deeply disgusting and I have never even had anal sex with a woman. The fact that I find it disgusting in no way implies that I condemn those people - men or women - who engage in that practice but it would be wholly dishonest of me to pretend that I found their behaviour normal or acceptable in my eyes. As I have said previously I have a few friends who are same-sex oriented and I feel sad that their preferred mode of sexual activity is towards their own gender but that is only one aspect of their lives and I relate to the whole person and NOT simply to their sexuality. I know that the gays and lesbians with whom I am friendly are good people and it is only in one single area of their life that I find it regrettable that they adopt the lifestyle choices that they do. It is not my intention to wish any same-sex individuals harm from the law, from personal abuse or physical attack. I deplore such behaviour every bit as much as I do any other type of singling out groups for blanket condemnation. All my instincts are towards a libertarian and liberal humanist value system. Perhaps it is a fault within myself but although I am perfectly willing to allow gays and lesbians to engage in consensual sexual activity in private if they are both adults I remain unable to view what they do as anything less than disgusting. That does NOT mean either that I regard them as disgusting people or that I regard them as some kind of sexual perverts. I simply find it incomprehensible that anyone could be oriented towards their own gender rather than the opposite sex. Transsexuals are a different matter. I understand how they feel and have known a couple myself. Theirs is a very sad situation where nature has pulled an unkind genetic trick upon them and trapped them in the 'wrong' body. Although technically male or female they are in all essential respects the opposite sex. Such is not the case with gays and lesbians, particularly the butch dyke and macho neo-Nazi 'hom' types. They are fully aware that they ARE men or women and do NOT wish to be the opposite gender. They simply find it more sexually fulfilling for them, particularly since that type of gay or lesbian is nearly always promiscuous, to engage in a same-sex relationship rather than a heterosexual one. I cannot understand why a woman feels the need to wear a strap-on dildo to have pretend intercourse with another woman. Nor can I understand how two men can choose to have anal intercourse. If that makes me sound like a bigoted homophobe then there is nothing I can do about it. There are clearly limits to my liberalism and I apologise if my views on this subject are not politically correct but I have never allowed considerations of expediency to govern my beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 1, 2012 19:52:36 GMT
That's a good point. I never really understand why people think it should be their concern what others do anyway. I think there are two responses to that statement, Hunny. In the first place it depends upon what kind of activity we are discussing. I certainly do NOT subscribe to the notion that how an individual chooses to behave is invariably a matter for them. Leaving aside obvious exceptions such as murder and rape (in both of which cases it is surely incumbent upon people to react in a morally correct manner rather than simply mouth the egotistical platitude that 'it's their business') I think that paedophilia and incest would also fall within those categories where an assertion of individual choice becomes simply an excuse for not adopting any kind of moral position. I suppose I had better make my own position of sexual morality clear since I have been misunderstood to a degree. I will begin by briefly responding to Lonewolf's comment before replying to what you have said and expressing my own opinions. In the first place I do not believe it is necessary to be a paedophile or to have observed paedophile activity to find it disgusting. Paedophilia, like incest, is a gross violation of trust. I find the whole idea of anal intercourse deeply disgusting and I have never even had anal sex with a woman. The fact that I find it disgusting in no way implies that I condemn those people - men or women - who engage in that practice but it would be wholly dishonest of me to pretend that I found their behaviour normal or acceptable in my eyes. As I have said previously I have a few friends who are same-sex oriented and I feel sad that their preferred mode of sexual activity is towards their own gender but that is only one aspect of their lives and I relate to the whole person and NOT simply to their sexuality. I know that the gays and lesbians with whom I am friendly are good people and it is only in one single area of their life that I find it regrettable that they adopt the lifestyle choices that they do. It is not my intention to wish any same-sex individuals harm from the law, from personal abuse or physical attack. I deplore such behaviour every bit as much as I do any other type of singling out groups for blanket condemnation. All my instincts are towards a libertarian and liberal humanist value system. Perhaps it is a fault within myself but although I am perfectly willing to allow gays and lesbians to engage in consensual sexual activity in private if they are both adults I remain unable to view what they do as anything less than disgusting. That does NOT mean either that I regard them as disgusting people or that I regard them as some kind of sexual perverts. I simply find it incomprehensible that anyone could be oriented towards their own gender rather than the opposite sex. Transsexuals are a different matter. I understand how they feel and have known a couple myself. Theirs is a very sad situation where nature has pulled an unkind genetic trick upon them and trapped them in the 'wrong' body. Although technically male or female they are in all essential respects the opposite sex. Such is not the case with gays and lesbians, particularly the butch dyke and macho neo-Nazi 'hom' types. They are fully aware that they ARE men or women and do NOT wish to be the opposite gender. They simply find it more sexually fulfilling for them, particularly since that type of gay or lesbian is nearly always promiscuous, to engage in a same-sex relationship rather than a heterosexual one. I cannot understand why a woman feels the need to wear a strap-on dildo to have pretend intercourse with another woman. Nor can I understand how two men can choose to have anal intercourse. If that makes me sound like a bigoted homophobe then there is nothing I can do about it. There are clearly limits to my liberalism and I apologise if my views on this subject are not politically correct but I have never allowed considerations of expediency to govern my beliefs. Mike, your views in no way come across "like a bigoted homophobe". You seem like a genuinely nice guy, and what i hear you saying is it isn't for you, basically, but you always make a point of not condemning the whole person and actually say some nice fair things about others. I don't think anyone could resent you for that.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 1, 2012 19:59:34 GMT
Mike, I think you did a great job of explaining the separation of issues.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 1, 2012 20:25:11 GMT
Homosexuality raises different issues. For example, can you imagine a situation where a black teenager has to work up the courage to tell his parents that he is black? Knowing that his dad hates blacks? Even if he does feel strong enough to face them: ''Mum, Dad, I've something to tell you. I'm black" and even if his Mum stops crying and his Dad calms down they might decide it's better not to tell Auntie Oprah cos, you know, she just couldn't handle it.... i hope that you weren't injured in that terrible fall when that puny straw you were grasping broke. that is an INSANE attempt at analogy. duh! by the time the kid can talk, his parents would be fully aware of what color he is, unless they are blind, in which case his dad couldn't hate blacks since he would not be able to tell the difference not even close Yes, duh! That's the point of my fable... ?? Maybe I was being too subtle. ;D Anna's point was: that black people have suffered the same sort of prejudice and pressures in society as homosexuals have, so saying that homosexuals are driven to suicide by these pressures is clearly refuted by noting that black people don't have a notably high suicide rate - in fact they may have a notably lower suicide rate than white people. My point was: that the prejudices and pressures that black people face are not the same really. The prejudice does not come from inside their own family, from the very people whom they should be able to rely on to help them face other pressures from society. They aren't isolated in the same way that a homosexual may be isolated; even in this enlightened age, a young person will probably still have to ''come out'' to his or her closest friends and family -- who may have regularly expressed prejudice and disgust at homosexual activity! -- whereas a black person knows that whatever prejudice is thrown at them, their closest friends and family are on their side in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jun 1, 2012 21:43:06 GMT
In the first place I do not believe it is necessary to be a paedophile or to have observed paedophile activity to find it disgusting. An act of Pedophilia is different than a homosexual act between consenting adults. It is a serious crime that victimizes helpless young children. Therefore, it should be a concern of every law-abiding person. The fact that I find it disgusting in no way implies that I condemn those people - men or women - who engage in that practice but it would be wholly dishonest of me to pretend that I found their behaviour normal or acceptable in my eyes. As I have said previously I have a few friends who are same-sex oriented and I feel sad that their preferred mode of sexual activity is towards their own gender but that is only one aspect of their lives and I relate to the whole person and NOT simply to their sexuality. I know that the gays and lesbians with whom I am friendly are good people and it is only in one single area of their life that I find it regrettable that they adopt the lifestyle choices that they do. Perhaps it is a fault within myself but although I am perfectly willing to allow gays and lesbians to engage in consensual sexual activity in private if they are both adults I remain unable to view what they do as anything less than disgusting.That does NOT mean either that I regard them as disgusting people or that I regard them as some kind of sexual perverts. I simply find it incomprehensible that anyone could be oriented towards their own gender rather than the opposite sex. Transsexuals are a different matter. I understand how they feel and have known a couple myself. Theirs is a very sad situation where nature has pulled an unkind genetic trick upon them and trapped them in the 'wrong' body. Although technically male or female they are in all essential respects the opposite sex.Such is not the case with gays and lesbians, particularly the butch dyke and macho neo-Nazi 'hom' types.They are fully aware that they ARE men or women and do NOT wish to be the opposite gender.They simply find it more sexually fulfilling for them, particularly since that type of gay or lesbian is nearly always promiscuous, to engage in a same-sex relationship rather than a heterosexual one.I cannot understand why a woman feels the need to wear a strap-on dildo to have pretend intercourse with another woman. Nor can I understand how two men can choose to have anal intercourse. You see, this is my point--------you’re simply too involved in what other consenting adults do behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 1, 2012 22:10:08 GMT
There are of course homosexuals who find the thought of sodomy pretty repulsive also.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jun 2, 2012 12:10:44 GMT
[/quote]
An act of Pedophilia is different than a homosexual act between consenting adults. It is a serious crime that victimizes helpless young children. Therefore, it should be a concern of every law-abiding person.[/quote]
At no point have I ever suggested or intended to imply that consensual same sex activity between adults was remotely comparable with the activities of paedophiles.
My point was simply that an attitude of indifference towards the sexual behaviour of others is not the same as an attitude of tolerance.
I might (and do) dislike very much what same-sex people engage in on the sexual front but that does not mean that I condemn it per se.
I find it disgusting but I have no wish to condemn those who practise such activities.
One of my biggest problems with many of my fellow libertarians and many people on the political left is their apparent belief that morality has little or no place in life.
An attitude of 'anything goes' - the elevation of the philosophy of a Cole Porter song into a prescription for human action - strikes me as absurd and repellent.
That is all.
As for your suggestion that I am 'too involved with what goes on behind closed doors' it is of course a question of what precisely you mean by involvement.
I have a right to adopt a moral position on an issue and that is what I have done.
It is not a question of being in effect some kind of peeping Tom - still less some sort of Anthony Comstock - to find certain kinds of sexual behaviour acceptable and others not.
That is all that I am saying.
I realise that my views are not popular among the politically correct crowd but that is simply how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 3, 2012 10:14:53 GMT
An act of Pedophilia is different than a homosexual act between consenting adults. It is a serious crime that victimizes helpless young children. Therefore, it should be a concern of every law-abiding person.[/quote] At no point have I ever suggested or intended to imply that consensual same sex activity between adults was remotely comparable with the activities of paedophiles. My point was simply that an attitude of indifference towards the sexual behaviour of others is not the same as an attitude of tolerance. I might (and do) dislike very much what same-sex people engage in on the sexual front but that does not mean that I condemn it per se. I find it disgusting but I have no wish to condemn those who practise such activities. One of my biggest problems with many of my fellow libertarians and many people on the political left is their apparent belief that morality has little or no place in life. An attitude of 'anything goes' - the elevation of the philosophy of a Cole Porter song into a prescription for human action - strikes me as absurd and repellent. That is all. As for your suggestion that I am 'too involved with what goes on behind closed doors' it is of course a question of what precisely you mean by involvement. I have a right to adopt a moral position on an issue and that is what I have done. It is not a question of being in effect some kind of peeping Tom - still less some sort of Anthony Comstock - to find certain kinds of sexual behaviour acceptable and others not. That is all that I am saying. I realise that my views are not popular among the politically correct crowd but that is simply how I feel.[/quote] normal, intelligent people know that it is better to be right than to be politically correct
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 3, 2012 10:22:06 GMT
of all the stupid things that you have ever said, that has to go down as the dumbest. NO ONE ever said that they observed any sexual behavior. damn, you're daft Jumbo, Mike is an educated man; he doesn't need an ignorant, uneducated, hillbilly like you to answer for him. Now, if you personally, Jumbo, are upset or disgusted by the sexual behavior of homosexuals then I can only surmise that you have an unhealthy obsession with them. That’s just an opinion of course. In fact, I remember reading about a case online where the good State of Georgia was prosecuting two adult male homosexuals for engaging in an act of sodomy. I thought at the time, and still do, that it was very strange and unhealthy for the citizenry of Georgia to have its collective attention focused on a man’s anus and to be concerned about what went up it. Yeah, but unlike you I’ve never dealt drugs. no, it's your lunatical thinking My lunatic thinking! Now that is a laugh. your obsession with demonstrating that you are totally devoid or rational intellectual ability is humorous, but little else. of course, you are entitled to your opinion. you have just as much right to be wrong as i have being right. your delight in your total lack of morals is disgusting, however
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 3, 2012 10:30:59 GMT
blacks have no choice in their skin color. homos DO have a choice between being normal or being a pervert They have a choice whether to act in accordance with their desires or not just like heterosexuals and everyone else (apart from maybe sex addicts). This is a separate issue from whether it is right or wrong to act on those desires. That is a matter of opinion and personal moral value system. If your morality is based on harm then there is nothing wrong with sexual acts between two members of the same sex, unless if one is underage or in another relationship or is being coerced etc. In fact homosexual sex could be argued to be less wrong than most heterosexual sex as unplanned pregnancies are not a risk. Of course if your value system is based on what you perceive to be perverse or unnatural then it is a different matter; though as with the above value system it is just a matter of subjective personal opinion not objective fact. that's specious on its face. first of all, unplanned pregnancy is not nearly as detrimental as aids. at any rate, where you go wrong is in your erroneous idea that morality is EVER subjective. it is not. morality is an absolute, and societal acceptance or rejection of something does NOT determine whether it is moral or not. what was immoral a million years ago, is immoral today, and will be immoral a million years from now
|
|
|
Post by toby on Jun 3, 2012 11:15:17 GMT
trubble posted.:-whereas a black person knows that whatever prejudice is thrown at them, their closest friends and family are on their side in the matter.
Toby comments.:- The blacks always have the choice to sit in a bath of bleach or get skin-lightening treatment like Whacko Jacko did, or they can go back to Africa to live out their lives, safe in the knowledge that nobody is going to give them a hard time because of their colour. Homo's don't have these choices though, do they ? they are cursed with their affliction.
|
|
|
Post by toby on Jun 3, 2012 11:17:11 GMT
Jumbo posted.:-at any rate, where you go wrong is in your erroneous idea that morality is EVER subjective. it is not. morality is an absolute, and societal acceptance or rejection of something does NOT determine whether it is moral or not. what was immoral a million years ago, is immoral today, and will be immoral a million years from now
Toby comments.;- Very good comment !!
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 3, 2012 11:17:15 GMT
that's specious on its face. first of all, unplanned pregnancy is not nearly as detrimental as aids. Heterosexual sex risks STDs also, whereas unplanned pregnancy is unique to heterosexual sex. I think you are mixing up your terms there. The opposite of subjective morality is objective morality, not absolute morality. A moral rule could be subjective and absolute. I also didn't say anything about majority opinion or time period determining what is moral. However subjective morality would exist even if an objective morality did, as people will still make their own value judgments (though they may be objectively wrong). But even if there is an objective morality, there is no methodology at present to determine what it says, and hence subjective morality, ie opinion, is all there is available to us. You have your opinions and other people have theirs. You determine morality in your way based on personal perceptions of perversion, others may hold a harm-based morality. And none of us can demonstrate that our opinion is objectively correct even if there was an objective morality to make our opinion objectively correct.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 3, 2012 13:39:18 GMT
There was a speech given by a famous writer who led a great fight for human rights. It was called "Solitude Of Self", and it offered a profound message... Consider that we've been discussing whether gays should have a right. But of course they have the right! We are ALL born with every right. It's only after we come into this world that a society -an arbitrary, authoritarian thing- takes all your rights away, by threat of force, and then PRETENDS it "has the right" to "give" you a few of them back ---as if it's up to some random jamokes what you can and cannot do. NONSENSE. This is what 'Solitude Of Self' said. And this is why there have been such great fights for human rights, because people arbitrarily deny others their freedoms just to be able to say THEY are in control of them. And then individuals foolishly PARROT about what is "wrong", to pretend they'd know. But what says which is right and wrong is arbitrary and subjective, often myth-based. (Religion isn't fact, it's belief.) Well I don't actually know why anyone would need to feel they are in control of others. Frankly, I have enough of a time controlling myself. But I'm saying, sadly, "rules" too often are NOT about prohibiting detrimental behaviors, they're about making something up, anything, to forbid others from doing, just to show who's the boss of them. And that's kind of ugly. Our governments, you may notice, tend to prohibit -not things that are detrimental to have happen- but essentially behaviors of self-determination and self-control. And they take -for themselves only to be "allowed" to do- all the things we're told to think of as so so terrible: drug-dealing, stalking, gambling, prostitution, killing, A&B and even just punching someone who has it coming ALL for only THEM to be "allowed" to do. Well just how are we supposed to believe these things are "wrong", when they are apparently so very "right" for the bullies at the top to do? (*They're not prohibiting them because they see these things as "wrong", they're just taking the power to act all for themselves, by de-powering you. ..What really is the difference between an individual drug dealer, who sells say pot, and a huge drug company that bribes its way to be left free to gouge everyone for harmful drugs which are "pushed" onto us, because in the end they dont cure the ill, just create an ongoing need (ie, addiction) to keep buying more? -for example.) Well they prohibit self-determination to take your control of yourself away from you, so that they can have it. Then they do those prohibited things on a larger scale themselves than any individual could imagine. So why is law control given credibility? Imagine John Wayne, if you will, or the Cartwright boys, getting in a little normal fisticuffs now. The Duke would end up on an episode of Cops!!! Does THAT seem "right" to you? _____________ CONTROL. Rules are about forcing control of others, and the majority of the ever-increasing number of them are not about the group which is a society discouraging detrimental behaviors, they're about a select few, bossing everyone else around, and taking all the gravy for themselves. So I just don't see it as "right" to have all these rules and morals we imagine up. It in fact seems immoral to oppress people and take their potential happiness away. Does the United States not guarantee the right to the pursuit of happiness? And does not its founding document say we are all equal? And is there not "separation of church and state"?Well, then I just don't see why we're discussing if homosexuals are disgusting (or should be "allowed", as at the other thread). Even your own Bible said "Judge not lest ye be judged." I think it was saying that judgmentality is wrong!! And certainly pretending it's ok for us to take someone else's born or equal rights away is wrong*. And talking of doing so is just doing it vicariously. -Just sayin' *I judge right and wrong by whether the act is detrimental to others or the whole. It's kind of nature's rule. Survival of the fittest you might even say, which says that if you harm no one then ok, if you help then ok, but if you hurt the group or another, not ok. That's the only determining factor i could find in nature -nay, in reality- for "right and wrong" [/b][/right][/size]
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jun 3, 2012 16:48:34 GMT
your delight in your total lack of morals is disgusting, however Says the former drug dealer.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Jun 3, 2012 16:55:33 GMT
I have a right to adopt a moral position on an issue and that is what I have done. And what is moral about your position?
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jun 3, 2012 21:14:38 GMT
Ah, morality. People have been arguing over what is or what is not moral for thousands of years.
As far as I am aware the oldest law code in the world (at least the oldest that has survived) is the Code of Hammurabi.
That criminalises a number of actions that most people would not regard as crimes at all nowadays and lays down punishments that most people would consider disproportionate.
The simple fact is that no moral assertion is or can be demonstrated with any degree of certainty.
In certain cultures it is considered acceptable to execute people for adultery; in most others it is not even regarded as a crime by the law.
The Bible, Quran, Vedas, Upanishads, Zend-Avesta and every other sacred book with which I am acquainted all contradict themselves on numerous points as well as frequently contradicting one another.
Very few moral philosophers have been able to make much sense of ethical questions either. Plato's efforts represent the least successful area of his philosophy. Aristotle made a better fist of it but because of his obsessive centrism found problems with certain qualities (his attempt to define 'truth' was a particularly inept example where he declared that it was a 'mean' between arrogance and mock-modesty). Hume managed to write considerably on the subject but ended up being unable to demonstrate any of his own conclusions. Kant tried to make out that there was a Categorical Imperative and that this required us to act in such a way that an action was moral if we could all wish it to be a universal law.
Nietzsche turned convention on its head and formulated a 'transvaluation of all values' that is largely of interest to psychiatrists rather than philosophers.
Nor have thinkers like Moore, Hare, Strawson et all been much more successful in attempting to determine what is and what is not moral.
In my opinion the only philosopher who has been relatively successful in the field is Schopenhauer. He was the first to distinguish clearly between 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive' morality (though he did not use those particular terms) and to show that ultimately what makes an action moral or immoral is to do with the concept of kindness.
Most people (pace psychopaths and fanatics) admire kindness and try to practise it; most people (again with the exception of psychologically disturbed people and bigots) detest cruelty and try to avoid it.
Now it is an elementary point in logic that no truth statement can contain a value judgement so that we may say, for instance, that we consider stealing wrong but that is simply a fact about our own opinions and not a fact about the inherent rightness or wrongness of the action.
Morality IS subjective but not in the sense that it HAS no place or meaning. It is subjective because it is not and cannot be determined mathematically or by the laws of logic or even by empirical observation.
On the other hand, I believe with Schopenhauer that kindness IS the good and unkindness IS evil.
If one adopts that as the broadly guiding principle of one's life I do not believe that you can go far wrong.
|
|