most morally correct thing in instances like this. But I feel that is an objective fact
(I swear I’m not trying to get the last word in and I am glad you have given my ideas a chance! I just want to point out an ontological pet peeve: you can’t have an objective fact in a discussion about relative morality. If morality were objective, what would there be left to have conflict about?)
Its calm, morality is inherently subjective most of the time because it depends on each individuals value system. However, I believe some things are objectively morally wrong. You’re driving down the street and see a random pedestrian, you stop, get out and shoot that pedestrian in the head, killing them. That is objectively morally wrong.
IDK, overpopulation is one of the largest factors in every major problem facing the world today. Reducing that population removes pressure from the mechanisms of society that are failing, which could quite reasonably be considered a positive and perhaps even imperative contribution to the group as a whole.
(Obviously I don’t think that, it’s a hyperbolic example on all sides, but that’s the issue with trying to claim objectivity in morality: there are points within that justification for random death that from a certain perspective could be considered wholly valid)
(I swear I’m not trying to get the last word in and I am glad you have given my ideas a chance! I just want to point out an ontological pet peeve: you can’t have an objective fact in a discussion about relative morality. If morality were objective, what would there be left to have conflict about?)
Its calm, morality is inherently subjective most of the time because it depends on each individuals value system. However, I believe some things are objectively morally wrong. You’re driving down the street and see a random pedestrian, you stop, get out and shoot that pedestrian in the head, killing them. That is objectively morally wrong.
IDK, overpopulation is one of the largest factors in every major problem facing the world today. Reducing that population removes pressure from the mechanisms of society that are failing, which could quite reasonably be considered a positive and perhaps even imperative contribution to the group as a whole.
(Obviously I don’t think that, it’s a hyperbolic example on all sides, but that’s the issue with trying to claim objectivity in morality: there are points within that justification for random death that from a certain perspective could be considered wholly valid)
Yeah, this one would run in circles. Good on ya though. Go argue with other posts I’ve made.