Message from @campodin
Discord ID: 487389330323668993
Perhaps if I saw somebody struck by lightning out of a blue sky for doing something immoral, then there would be proof of an objective morality.
Sure there are, things like degeneracy and the negative effect it has on those people and their society.
Why must the consequences be immediate and obvious?
An agreed upon set of ethics and decisions on what is more right won't sway me. I think there is justification for morality, but no true morality that presides above the rest.
‘degeneracy’ is one of the most subjective things out there
It's like, what is the difference between righteous anger, and indignation to you?
Not really. If you believe in degeneracy, it becomes pretty obvious what are degenerate acts, naturally there will be edge cases as there are in everything.
When does killing become murder?
When does indulgence become degenerate?
Murder is easily defined. Premeditated and unjustified killing
Who decides what is Just when it comes to killing?
Ideally it shouldn't be a "who". There should be some standard which determines what is justification
But that's not how the Courts work.
Because humans aren't capable of attaining perfect objectivity
Should we do away with the courts and have a paper run them instead?
What?
Who would write this Mystical document that would enforce right and wrong and not be subjected to any interpretation?
How would that be enforced?
What would enforce it?
This has nothing to do with the morality and justification of a thing, you are asking questions of application
I'm asking how is there a definite morality.
No you weren't
Yes, I was.
If there is an objective morality, what is it?
You asked about a document that would enforce the morality. Not how morality is definite
Holy, sweet Lord, give me strength.
A document would be the application of the morality
I asked those questions because you said it should not be a "who" that decides what is Just
Which implies it should be a what.
A paper is written by a who
Then, pray thee tell, do you suggest be proof of this objective morality?
That is a philosophical question
No, it is a question that directly relates to your *opinion* that there is an objective morality.
That there is one morality that presides all others.
And takes precedence.
I'm asking what it is, and how is it free from interpretation?
We should be able to logically deduce the objective morality, which is a question of philosophy.
Unfortunately, humans are not perfectly logical creatures. We cannot achieve perfect objectivity in our moral systems.
Morality is not logical as there is no system to validate what is moral, and immoral.
I already provided two: natural rights and evolutionary psychology