You say that. But that’s when you get two people just assuming that the other person is simply justifying their own view while really know that they themselves are right.
They can be. They can also define what is right, situation dependant.
If both can be wrong, I think it’s likely that both can also be right.
Okay I’m seeing the problem here you don’t actually have a concept of how subjective ethics are. No society has a set of ethics that are universal to every other culture and that’s just fact.
I wouldn’t say they don’t have a concept of that, they just disagree with the idea. To them, any moral disagreement is on some level disingenuous in nature.
Akiyass seems to think that morality is a genetic condition you have to choose to overlook.
I can’t blame people who hold that view. I know I used to when I was younger before I was exposed to other people who also held that same view but the specifics were different than mine. That’s when I had to face the fact that most people actually believe they are right. Otherwise, they might be doing something else.
I think part of the issue with this debate has been the interchangeable use of honor and morality. I don’t reject the idea of an essentialistic view of morality at all, but they’re not the same thing.
They can be both wrong, one can be right, one can be wrong.
Nope
Rare, but I suppose. Doesn’t really change that morality is objective.
See, it’s the opposite for me. When I was younger, I believed in a subjective morality. Until I studies ethics in college and I have traveled the world, lived in various places. Met a lot of different people. Found that there is more that makes us similar than different, that is true when it comes to concepts of right and wrong.
Can’t argue with that…
You traveled the wortld and found out that people have the same universal concepts of right and wrong? Hmmm…
Ethics and morality are totally different. Ethics does not consider morality or even truth. If you are perceived as breaking ethics it’s the same as breaking them, because the effect it has. If you are in position to commit insider trading or have a conflict of interest you can’t avoid that perception and people may react based on it. That’s why if you have a personal relationship with a judge you can’t have him preside over your case. Even if he would never bend the law to benefit a friend.
Morality is just a subjective society’s view on right and wrong. Right and wrong are not good and evil. Evil is objective, breaking morality or doing harm to others. Morality is subjective because it’s a group of people deciding that some things are evil.
I mean, yeah, pretty much.
Uh, lol…
Or you know… insider trading and having a conflict of interest is wrong for other reasons too.
They are the same.
What about all the religious beliefs? Sins are a violation of morality. So if I don’t believe a religion am I still evil for doing things they deem immoral? If not then are their moralities wrong?
Well, lets use an example.
Christians vs the LBGTQ.
Christians who are avidly against same sex relations violate a wide number of restrictions imposed by religious doctrine. While forgetting it’s core belief. Love thy neighbor a thyself. So, they are not being honest with themselves and are instead justifying their own insecurity bred hatred with out of context scripture.
“Out of context scripture” that many of them truly believe is correct. Some go out of their way to hate gay people, and those might not be honest with themselves, but some honestly think that they should save gay people from themselves. If they say they are doing it to help them how could they be going against any part of their beliefs.
Not that it helps when you’re the one being told you are evil for your way of life. But that’s true of any religion. They all inherently assume the other is wrong.
Also if everyone does have this moral compass of right and wrong, why would so many people question if they are doing the right thing.
And in these travels you came to realize that codes of honor designed to regulate bad behavior by doing bad in a specific way made it good?
The Horde in Warcraft III was evil. It was just less evil than the Scourge.
In what manner was the Horde evil in Warcraft 3?
No they don’t… They want it to be true, but they know it’s not. Otherwise, they would abstain from shellfish and wearing certain fabrics, and trim their beard a certain way.
See above.
Because humans are selfish. We know when we are doing something wrong, but if it benefits us in someway, we are willing to overlook it. Truth is, I do not believe there is such a thing as gay or straight, just people who like what they like to varying degrees o what we consider masculine and feminine. But due to generations of sexual suppression, being gay has become a personal identity, as they fight back against the people who tell them they shouldn’t be this way. I think most people who are hatefully against homosexuality are so from a place of self loathing because they lack the courage to come out about their sexuality. They are envious and resentful against the people who live a lifestyle that they, themselves, secretly want.
Well, not really. But historically, codes of honor served to be rules of engagement in warfare.
Well, orcs are not human. So it really doesn’t matter does it? If blizzard says orcs have a moral structure where they think it’s totally fine to kill another so long as it’s honorable then that’s their morality. They think it’s right to war and fight. It could even be their “genetic code” based on where they come from.
Going to try and tip toe back to the original subject. Because you’re not going to change your mind that people have some ingrained sense of morality.
But is it?
War is bad> codes regulate how to engage in war
Killing prisoners is bad> codes regulate how to kill prisoners
The code to do bad things in a specific way make it good or bad?