|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:38 am
|
|
|
|
Matasoga Esiris Matasoga This depends on whether you mean how morality is defined, or what morality actually is. I don't think people have really tried to define morality in this thread- instead they just list examples. I'd suggest a different approach, then. All the same, trying to get a consensus on morality, I suppose just further proves the subjectivity of its nature. It doesn't- an absence of agreement doesn't mean reality is subjective any more than an absence of agreement between doctors who misdiagnose a patient changes what is making the patient sick in the first place.
What we have from most people in the discussion is a failure to logically examine their understanding of morality which is flawed because of their lack of education.
Every reason given why morality is subjective so far has fallen into the same logical traps that we explained in my first post, if people won't address those flaws, they can't move forward in their arguments. If they can't address those fallacies, maybe it would be better to just say so, and devote more time and study to morality and the chain of disciplines that shape our interaction with morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|