If morality is subjective

[Defenestration]

Then can one determine that killing and eating babies is the morally righteous thing to do?

[RRW359]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Defenestration:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Apteryx:

Well, that's just mental sickness. If your brain can somehow come up with a reason to "justify" pointless murder, then you need serious help

But by the definition of subjective morality, what's immoral to someone can be morally permissible to another. By that definition, a person can argue that killing and eating babies isn't murder, and then proceed to further justify that it's immoral to deprive them of killing and eating babies. They can also determine that they are mentally healthy in justifying this scenario.

Unless the majority of your peers decide that allowing people to eat babies does enough harm to society that it necessitates jailing people as a form of deterrant, re-education, separation from society, or mixture of all three. In which case you can still eat them as long as you are either willing to deal with the consequences or think you have a compelling enough argument to convince a dozen people on the spot to not punish you.

[Defenestration]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Triple G:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Defenestration:

Then can one determine that killing and eating babies is the morally righteous thing to do?

Sure. It depends with what value the people grew up with and what they´re used to. Else there wouldn´t have been certain cannibal groups, who did exactly that.

If morality is subjective it means the general morality in a society is based on what the majority of people think about "good" or "evil". If morality wouldn´t be subjective it means there would be hard evidence for it, which is not the case.

Subjective morality undermines how we define what is evil or not, through subjective morality we might as well say evil doesn't exist since there's no objective, well-defined definition of it. I believe morality is objective but sometimes not innately known and rather must be taught to it, children don't always know that stealing is wrong unless told otherwise. Instincts are objective but innately known and thus don't really need to be taught about it to know its existence, even though it would be wiser to understand it better.

[TwisterCat]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RRW359:

Unless the majority of your peers decide that allowing people to eat babies does enough harm to society that it necessitates jailing people as a form of deterrant, re-education, separation from society, or mixture of all three. In which case you can still eat them as long as you are either willing to deal with the consequences or think you have a compelling enough argument to convince a dozen people on the spot to not punish you.

That wouldn't be an issue, if the baby wasn't a part of my social group. Humans have shown throughout history that they're not willing to betray one another for the lives of another peoples.

The only thing in the way of me and war crimes, would, hypothetically, be an objective form of morality. I don't believe a group-defined morality, in that event, would ever be strong enough to cause any form of betrayal from my peers. Although it might cause some infighting.

Alternatively, the threats of other groups might be a determent. But then, it's still just a spoils to the victor mentality.

[Defenestration]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RRW359:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Defenestration:

But by the definition of subjective morality, what's immoral to someone can be morally permissible to another. By that definition, a person can argue that killing and eating babies isn't murder, and then proceed to further justify that it's immoral to deprive them of killing and eating babies. They can also determine that they are mentally healthy in justifying this scenario.

Unless the majority of your peers decide that allowing people to eat babies does enough harm to society that it necessitates jailing people as a form of deterrant, re-education, separation from society, or mixture of all three. In which case you can still eat them as long as you are either willing to deal with the consequences or think you have a compelling enough argument to convince a dozen people on the spot to not punish you.

Unfortunately that's how the world works, but even then a large number of people believing something doesn't automatically make it true.

[Triple G]

Also we eat babies. Just not human babies.

And we put male chicken babies into shredders in an automated process, because god wills it probably - and because we´re morally superior creatures.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Defenestration:

children don't always know that stealing is wrong unless told otherwise.

Perhaps they think it´s sharing. Until someone says that this is wrong, because You need to understand the documents which tell You otherwise first. And that above everything else - stands the private property of certain people, which You can´t take away, because it´s morally wrong, as their parents, and grandparents worked very hard for it, and money is super hard to come by if You have little, to make others rich.

[RRW359]

Początkowo opublikowane przez TwisterCat:

Początkowo opublikowane przez RRW359:

Unless the majority of your peers decide that allowing people to eat babies does enough harm to society that it necessitates jailing people as a form of deterrant, re-education, separation from society, or mixture of all three. In which case you can still eat them as long as you are either willing to deal with the consequences or think you have a compelling enough argument to convince a dozen people on the spot to not punish you.

That wouldn't be an issue, if the baby wasn't a part of my social group. Humans have shown throughout history that they're not willing to betray one another for the lives of another peoples.

The only thing in the way of me and war crimes, would, hypothetically, be an objective form of morality. I don't believe a group-defined morality, in that event, would ever be strong enough to cause any form of betrayal from my peers. Although it might cause some infighting.

Alternatively, the threats of other groups might be a determent. But then, it's still just a spoils to the victor mentality.

It's not threats from other groups, you are in the same group and have the same say in what punishment should be given for doing certain acts. However the majority of the group has decided that it's best to punish people for the good of the rest of the group; and you can try to change their minds if you want. And the way guilt is determined still allows you to convince a jury that you shouldn't be punished even when the majority of the voting pool has already decided on the law.

[RRW359]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Defenestration:

Początkowo opublikowane przez RRW359:

Unless the majority of your peers decide that allowing people to eat babies does enough harm to society that it necessitates jailing people as a form of deterrant, re-education, separation from society, or mixture of all three. In which case you can still eat them as long as you are either willing to deal with the consequences or think you have a compelling enough argument to convince a dozen people on the spot to not punish you.

Unfortunately that's how the world works, but even then a large number of people believing something doesn't automatically make it true.

Having the people determine laws is the worst way to determine morality, excluding all other methods that have been tried.

[Not Big Surprise]

technically yes, but if you try you're gonna get expunged from life

[shoopy]

Yes it could and in some ways did happen, but societies usually outgrow detrimental behaviors eventually. There aren't many practical benefits to eating your children.

[TwisterCat]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RRW359:

Początkowo opublikowane przez TwisterCat:

That wouldn't be an issue, if the baby wasn't a part of my social group. Humans have shown throughout history that they're not willing to betray one another for the lives of another peoples.

The only thing in the way of me and war crimes, would, hypothetically, be an objective form of morality. I don't believe a group-defined morality, in that event, would ever be strong enough to cause any form of betrayal from my peers. Although it might cause some infighting.

Alternatively, the threats of other groups might be a determent. But then, it's still just a spoils to the victor mentality.

It's not threats from other groups, you are in the same group and have the same say in what punishment should be given for doing certain acts. However the majority of the group has decided that it's best to punish people for the good of the rest of the group; and you can try to change their minds if you want. And the way guilt is determined still allows you to convince a jury that you shouldn't be punished even when the majority of the voting pool has already decided on the law.

Well, them's the facts, what you've said is true for me personally, but it's not doing much for me in deciding what I think of current world events. I suppose I don't need to think of those.

Just that, if chaos ever hits home, the laws of order are nullified.

[Triple G]

Początkowo opublikowane przez shoopy:

Yes it could and in some ways did happen, but societies usually outgrow detrimental behaviors eventually. There aren't many practical benefits to eating your children.

You´re doing it wrong. You need to eat the children of the enemies. As there´s always practical use to have enemies and going to war. And if You have a peaceful environment, You make up other wars, and pick new enemies, but call them competitors, or opponents.

[sleeps]

morality is "not" exactly subjective. more like complex as the options for choosing far good and far evil is quite low. i usually hate to say this but this is why making yourself a judge doesn't make the issue any better when you are not the word of god religiously or a lawyer secularly.

[shoopy]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Triple G:

Początkowo opublikowane przez shoopy:

Yes it could and in some ways did happen, but societies usually outgrow detrimental behaviors eventually. There aren't many practical benefits to eating your children.

You´re doing it wrong. You need to eat the children of the enemies. As there´s always practical use to have enemies and going to war. And if You have a peaceful environment, You make up other wars, and pick new enemies, but call them competitors, or opponents.

Societies who have enough wars start making rules for wars. You don't want your own babies to be eaten because it weakens your ability to make war in the future, so you make a no eating babies rule.

[Good Night Owl]

Yeah it is subjective. It is why countries can have wildly different laws and religions.

Just look at racism, something considered normal 150 years ago, now viewed as the most evil thing ever. Mark Twain uses the forbidden "N" word in his book 'Huckleberry Finn' to describe a beloved character that Mark put a lot of thought into, using that word only because it was common vernacular at the time the book was written. It doesn't stop people from branding him as turbo racist.

[Ni-Neith]

Morality is relatively subjective and changes with each period of time.
Once upon a time in ancient times it was normal for cannibal societies to eat people, in modern times it is immoral.
We don't know what moral standards will be in 1000 years. We might not like them.