Honestly this is a pretty big topic in philosophy. It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
Some people believe that not going to church each week is amoral, but some atheists think organized religion is amoral - who is right?
You and I can agree that murder is immoral. Would that stance change if we were on the jury for a murder trial and, if found guilty, the offender would be sentenced to death? If that doesn’t make us murderers, what makes the death penalty an appropriate and moral punishment?
Simply replying “false” indicates little to no thought on the subject or its nuance, and gives off strong “I’m 13 and this is deep” vibes
It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
You can also jump straight to the top and argue it’s because the human experience itself is always subjective, since meat doesn’t seem to be very good at observing Reality. And then we get to cogito ergo sum and all that jazz
Reasonable person is a consistently used terminology in law. That is because objectivity can be achieved in certain circumstances. Say someone rapes, murders and necrophiles a person of any age. That is objectively an evil action in which any reasonable person would condem the perpetrator.
I think all of these actions are morally wrong but could you tell me how they are objective and not subjective? A reasonable person seems to be a person and consequently fundamentally subjective.
The law is meant to be fair (which is a separate can of worms, but the goal is fairness). It is not meant to be moral, though it often follows what people generally consider to be moral, like don’t rape or murder people.
And, honestly, using the “reasonable person” argument here goes against your point - it indicates that people with different morals exist, and therefore morality must be subjective.
Honestly this is a pretty big topic in philosophy. It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
Some people believe that not going to church each week is amoral, but some atheists think organized religion is amoral - who is right?
You and I can agree that murder is immoral. Would that stance change if we were on the jury for a murder trial and, if found guilty, the offender would be sentenced to death? If that doesn’t make us murderers, what makes the death penalty an appropriate and moral punishment?
Simply replying “false” indicates little to no thought on the subject or its nuance, and gives off strong “I’m 13 and this is deep” vibes
You can also jump straight to the top and argue it’s because the human experience itself is always subjective, since meat doesn’t seem to be very good at observing Reality. And then we get to cogito ergo sum and all that jazz
Reasonable person is a consistently used terminology in law. That is because objectivity can be achieved in certain circumstances. Say someone rapes, murders and necrophiles a person of any age. That is objectively an evil action in which any reasonable person would condem the perpetrator.
I think all of these actions are morally wrong but could you tell me how they are objective and not subjective? A reasonable person seems to be a person and consequently fundamentally subjective.
Wrong
The law is meant to be fair (which is a separate can of worms, but the goal is fairness). It is not meant to be moral, though it often follows what people generally consider to be moral, like don’t rape or murder people.
And, honestly, using the “reasonable person” argument here goes against your point - it indicates that people with different morals exist, and therefore morality must be subjective.
Gimme a minute I have to go to sleep. But, you’re obviously wrong.
Cool, sounds legit
Who decides what a reasonable person is? Well a reasonable person, obviously.