Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually that affirms individual morality. The morality of an act changes depending on the person committing the act.
Why should the morality of an act, from one person's perspective, change with regard to the identity of the person committing the act? That would negate the point of having an individual morality in the first place.
Actually that affirms individual morality. The morality of an act changes depending on the person committing the act.
He then also asked for YOUR moral view on retribution in the scenario of murdering someone's SO, and you said yes, it was moral to murder someone else's SO. Why on earth would you answer "yes" to that if it wasn't your morality or the morality of the society in which you live? What possible use is it to answer "yes" on the minority of sociopaths who believe such a thing is moral, or on behalf of another society wherein such a thing is moral? Who the hell cares about that?
For most people, when you consider something immoral, you consider it immoral for everyone who does it. People don't get exemptions because their personal morality tells them otherwise.
It depends on how you view it. If you view something immoral, yes, you do consider it immoral for everyone else.
But what about the person who believes the opposite of you?
Who is 'correct'? Neither really. The person's morality which is closest to society's morality has more power behind his individual morality, but it doesn't mean it is more 'right' than someone else's.
Yep, basically. Nothing is immoral to a person that believes his acts are moral. It is immoral to other people (outside observers).
Were this the case, nothing would be immoral.
Yep, basically. Nothing is immoral to a person that believes his acts are moral. It is immoral to other people (outside observers).
Comment