For instance, the idea of not killing someone without a very good reason lays the groundwork for determining if an action adhered to a set of moral standards. If you knock over a liquor store and kill the owner because "da fool wouldn't gi me da money" you may have fulfilled your own personal criteria of having a very good reason but I'd tend to think twelve other people sitting on a jury would disagree - unless your name is OJ Simpson.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:45 AM, leerevdouglas@googlemail.com <lee@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
Yes I think this is true Chuck, however due to the nature of personal
subjective morality has it any hope of happening?
Think of only the Christian faith and see how it has spintered under
differances over dogma.
Even like minded individuals will not share exactly the smae moral
code. Nope there is no objective morality and I don't think there
every will be.
On Apr 27, 8:22 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The term "morality" can be used either> 1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a
>
> society or,
> 1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
>
> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford Encyclopedia
> of Philosophy.
>
> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may be
> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify behavioral
> expectations within the group or society.
>
>> > morality.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of subjective
> > morality. I contend that there exists no such thing as objective
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment