|
Laws are also a set of beliefs about how one should live their life. The only difference is that when you break a law there is clear and concrete punishment, but morality the punishment is usually your own. People like to think that morals originate in themselves but it isn't true. People are raised and indoctrinated with morals from their parents, society, religion, television, books, etc. And while we think we make the decision what to believe totally on our own we have to recognize the the foundation for preferences were also laid down somewhere along the line from an exterior source... there are no a priori morals. The confusion comes in where laws are overtly dictated to us and morals are covertly dictated to us.
As for objective morals I do not think there are. Just as there are no objective laws (by laws I mean civil laws not natural laws). The test of objectivity is if something would exist without a subject to interpret or experience it. Since people are not born into morality and without humanity there would not be morals then I have to say no. My question is whether something being subjective necessarily makes it less real, important, or good.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
|