It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Thanks for the info, I didn't know about the constructal law. Very interesting.Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the conclusions in that article. There is science to show that the unalienable rights are requisite for life, not that life is automatically entitled to them. Entitlement is not a scientific concept.Which is besides the point. Your main argument conflates morality with the survival of humans. Which, in general that's usually what we mean when we say morality. But this social construct was invented by us to preserve our own interests (survival). That is nearly the definition of subjective.Your work is ahead of you to show that the survival of humans is morally good, and show the objective standard that dictates this.
Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.
- David Ricardo
In order for one to believe that morality was not objective one would need to adopt and accept an argument against objective morality as objectively true. This is self contradictory.
Per dictionary.com"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: "
1. objective morality would need to be uninfluenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.2. human morality is based on their personal interest in survival.
3. therefore, human morality is subjective.You'll need to prove premise 2 to be false.
Per dictionary.com"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: "1. objective morality would need to be uninfluenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.2. human morality is based on their personal interest in survival.3. therefore, human morality is subjective.You'll need to prove premise 2 to be false.
Conduct is the way you treat people. Morality is the distinction between malevolence and benevolence.You can say that it's morally good to treat people nicely, but have no objective standard to say it is morally good.Protecting children certainly is a self preserving trait. it's evolutionarily beneficial for obvious reasons. Species that do not protect vulnerable offspring do not last.Speaking more generally, people do nice things because it makes them feel good. It's a self interest.Besides, you haven't shown an objective standard on which to base the statement, "helping people is morally good".
Whether saving the child from the bully is good for me, or only good for the child, either way, it is only subjectively good, not objectively.
Objective, adj: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
Subjective, adj: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
To say something is objectively morally good, means it is morally good regardless of anyone's opinions of it.
When we say it's morally wrong to kill someone, the standard we use to say that is most people think its bad. Its biased based on peoples thoughts.
Objective moral benevolence would have to have a definition that transcends humankind that would be true even in the absence of human kind.
Moral benevolence simply means most people agree that's its good. This is a subjective view point.
I'm looking for objective, unbiased criteria to differentiate between a good moral and a bad moral.