Richard Powers;3150693]This is another example of you begging the question (and appealing to emotion). You are saying morality has to be objective because the rape of a 6 year is objectively immoral. You still need to establish that morality is objective.
And this is you avoiding the point because it leaves you very few avenues to venture down if you address it.
Soon as you preach subjective morality the rape of a 6 year old becomes acceptable in your moral understanding of the world through ambiguity. An emotional response does come with this example but then again an emotional response comes with most instances of horrid injustice and immorality. We would not be human (or a rational human at least) if we considered the harming of such a child to ever in any instance be considered acceptable.
We can not unequivacably prove that morality is objective but again, we can not prove beyond a doubt that anything exists. However, what we have seen in this discussion is the shifting of the scales in the favor of objectivity because the case for subjectivity is a self lynching argument. Your in a hallway with many doors, many of which have now been shut.
You stand on very shaky ground or quite honestly, no ground at all. Soon as you embrace the belief of a relative or subjective morality you embrace much more than you originally thought. The law of unintended consequences comes with quite a fury in this instance above all others. When you talk of an emotional response being gained by the example of the 6 year old girl, you are quite correct. However, it is not just an emotional response but a logical and rational one as well. But still, there is something more that tells us this is wrong. Something that we can not put our fingers on.
You can keep pushing for this subjective morality, but remember, that brings your approval of things such as rape, murder and pedophile into this world with you yourself defending the right that they are just as right as we think them to be wrong. I wonder if tha freight train will cause you a moments hesitation and self reflection.
Making moral judgments against people like Hitler does nothing.
Not ture at all. It furthers our resolve and lays clear exactly why we needed to enage in hostilities with the man. You diassociate morality with the common good. All the desire for the common good or the greater good is based on some sort of moral understanding. Our moral understanding of Adolf Hitler laid the foundation for our opposition for him in the war. Your understanding is incorrect. The first step in many instances is always a moral evaluation or much more common, a physical evaluation (such as I’m hungry). Such things have importance becasue they are the first step of many and the first step that points in a specific direction.
Hitler was not stopped because of our moral judgments.
Hitler was partly opposed by our moral judgments and was made an example and tribute to our moral judgement long after he has been dead.
He was stopped because we went to war against Hitler and the Nazis and bombed and shot them.
Bombs do not drop without reason. Moral objections to Hitler were part of the reason (the other reasons are obvious).
