Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Where did this nonsense about Morality being "subjective" come from? Wrong is Wrong and Right is Right. There are grey areas based upon mitigating circumstance, but Moral is still Moral.
If you allow Morality to be subjective, then you are explicitly ALLOWING all of the above criminal, Immoral acts. Murder is allowed, if it's conveniant. Rape is allowed, if the woman's a slut. Slavery is allowed because, after all, they were too weak and stupid. Fraud and Theft are allowed, if the perpetrator is a Politcally Correct minority, or poor, or a Government Agency.
|
The idea that there is some kind of 'natural law' is ridiculous. This is not about 'allowing' morality to be subjective, it just IS subjective.
Kiling might be wrong to you, but for some Asian communities, killing someone who has done brought dishonour on your family regains that honour. This would be considered more than a little harsh in the western world and come under the heading 'murder' (I like putting things in quotes :P).
Is theft immoral if it is to feed a starving child?
If right is right and wrong is wrong, how can there be a grey area like you say. People invented the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, they are not naturally occuring in the sense that there is some implicit justice system built into the universe.
If a lion kills a baby wildebeest, is that immoral or does 'natural law' only apply to humans?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
For violent crimes, the best solution is that they never be allowed to occur: that the intended victim shoot their attacker dead. This person surrendered their Right to Life the moment they initiated the use of Force.
|
I like the use of the word 'intended' here. What you're saying is that a would be attacked should be executed on the spot
before they commit a crime.
The Aztecs condoned ritual human sacrifice, it was not immoral to them. There are other examples, but I have a bus to catch
back later.