Asaris,
Morality is not universally valid. Something such as the distain for murder might seem that way but in truth it is just our instinctive urge for self-preservation.
Subjectivity is in our perception; objectivity is in the world around us. So yes, it is true, morals do have some objective base because we are instinctive and habitual creatures. Our need for self-preservation is instinctive, yet what we perceive as a risk to ourselves is subjective.
Finally, just because something is subjective doesn’t make it invalid. If we have a moral/ethic code that applies to worldview of most individuals then it will work.
Quote:
|
Why do we want to be able to judge other peoples actions?
|
Take your subway example. If we are tripped we feel threatened. At this moment it is important to determine whether this threat is intentional and therefore might be followed up by further attacks. If it is an attack then we must respond, for the sake of ourselves and our society. If the trip was accidental, yet the person who is responsible doesn’t acknowledge his actions as dangerous and doesn’t apologize then once again we must take action. Because the individual holds contempt for the safety of others and is a risk to ourselves and our society.
Quote:
|
But how can we be acting justly when we try to stop evil if what is good is only good because of our own agreement on it? For an example: if good is subjective, how can we say that Saddam was wrong in gassing his own people?
|
We are not acting justly; we are acting for the best interests of society and ourselves. We do not want to be gassed and murdered by our own government therefore any government which commits such acts is judged as immoral/un-ethical.