Kaz_1983 wrote: ↑September 4th, 2019, 10:20 pm
No my argument is that morals are constructed by human beings and it's irrational to think otherwise.
I did not say otherwise.
However I think it is more than stupid to deny the root natural causes and tendencies provided by nature.
Morals as we know them, are just subjective opinions - which are based on personal preferences
What is the root of the preference. It is merely capricious?
- it just happens that anything, that's based on subjective opinion even it's a shared universal opinion like murder is bad/life is valuable - it's still just an opinion at the end of the day.
Unless you believe in a God that is...
I don't. But the concern about killing fellow humans is widespread. Why should it be?
Let's say a serial killer desires to be good, he strongly believes that killing only 1 person (and having sex with thier dead body..) is poor.... I mean killing 5 people (then having sex with thier dead bodies...) that's good in his opinion.
By your logic that behaviour is moral:
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2019, 6:24 am
Being moral and desiring to be good are the same thing
Having sex with a dead body isn't objectivity immoral and nor is murder, doing both at the same time isn't objectively immoral. If neither is immoral, do morals even exist or are morals just shared opinions that are based on preferences? .. IMO you just prefer to believe in morality....
If you have tendency to **** corpses than that is good for you, and I am sure that you can find moral justification for it , as I am sure necrophiliacs do.
I do not believe in any form of objective morality, so you have attacked the wrong person, You might want to try someone else.
IMO you are ignoring human nature, which gives all a base line that has meant that all human societies have morals, though those natural tendencies are directed in different ways.
For example, all humans (bar psychopaths) have reservations about killing other humans. Yet all human societies define in different ways those that are deserving of such moral protection. Members of the tribe benefit, whilst outsiders do not. Outsiders might not even qualify as human. Successful societies in the common era have, though, commonly extended the right of life to strangers or guests. So rather than making an enemy of neighboring tribes, xenophilic tribes were able to make large alliances. This has social/evolutionary advantages. The Greeks were big on this, and had it not been for "guest-friendship", the disparate tribes of Greece would not have been able to stand against Persia.
Though all morality is subjective and all opinion. That does not mean it is arbitrary. It means it can be challenged, but does not mean it can be simply dismissed.
We can't live in society without morality. But that does not mean you have to take **** from authority; but know that there are penalties. Since the buttoned down, stuck up 1950s the western world has been on a massive evolution, even revolution in moral thinking.
Only an idiot, such as one I can think of on this Forum, could pretend, with all this change, that moral law can be objective.