(Jan 20, 2019 05:18 AM)Leigha to CC Wrote: Very good point. How about laws, like speeding limits and those that govern our justice system? Do most people feel that murder is objectively wrong, for example? Yet there are many murderers in prison. Do we presume that they subjectively believe murder to be acceptable, or do they too believe it to be an objectively immoral act, yet simply tried to skirt the law? No right or wrong answers, perhaps - just picking your brain.Speed limits are a judgment call, which is why they vary by location, and tend to be refined by objective things like accident rates. More a practical than moral matter.
Since many murders are caught due to their own errors, I'd be apt to assume many do know it is immoral. Those that don't are psychopaths who can justify murder to themselves. Whether sane people would call their justification anything approaching a morality is another matter. At the very least, they must know the overwhelming consensus on the morality of murder, otherwise they'd be more readily caught.
(Jan 20, 2019 05:18 AM)Leigha Wrote:(Jan 20, 2019 12:23 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: Leigh, if you wish to use comparative moral equity(is the moral base of a moral consideration equal in its application by how it is used on all things, OR is it just applied to a single instance to pretend it is a moral when in fact it is personal opinion/dysfunction etc).
evolutionary benefits of wife bashing...
evolutionary benefits of child abuse
evolutionary benefits of killing your female partner...
now look at how religious groups act and promote the agenda of anti-gay and label it anti natural
while they sit by doing nothing about domestic homicide and child abuse.
you dont see conservative church groups making special political groups rallying against domestic homicide or child abuse.
why ?
because there is no moral equity between being anti-gay and being anti-wife/child beater.
this shows they are morally corrupt/dishonest.
In your examples above, while that is completely true (your correlation between how religious groups promote different agendas) - I'm not sure this unequivocally means that those same groups believe that domestic homicide and child abuse aren't heinous offenses to humanity. Those offenses don't make for the best political platforms during presidential campaigns, so they just don't get the same consideration. It doesn't mean though that they don't believe those crimes to be objectively offensive.
I think when it comes to harming others, there are unwavering, objective truths. Justifying one's bad behaviors (''I stole because I'm hungry'') doesn't negate that stealing is objectively immoral. We can still have empathy for those who break laws, and try to help them live better lives. There is a danger in a society that has no laws based on objective truths. It would result in anarchy. I'm not sure if this answers your question?
Ah, RU's usual religious hatred.
Religious people tend to be some of the biggest supporters of police and law and order, which are focused on handling things like domestic homicide and child abuse. It's the LGBT activists who overlap significantly with BLM and other anti-police and weak on crime agendas.
We already have laws and enforcement against domestic homicide and child abuse, so there are no politics to overcome in establishing them. There is an LGBT agenda that seems bent on destroying religious freedom.
Domestic homicide and child abuse are not political issues because everyone agrees they are wrong. Only those transparently seeking to sling mud would try to claim anyone didn't.
I agree. Theft is theft, regardless of the excuse or justification. Psychopaths have plenty of justifications too.