No, you have it all wrong.
no, i don't believe i do.
The question is whether or not something can be right for one person and wrong for another given the exact same circumstances.
no the question is whether subjective morality is bullshit or not. you're just framing the definition in an exaggerated and distorted manner.
its not a matter of right/wrong, but a matter of wrong/not necessarily wrong.
again the abortion example to support my argument: who exactly thinks its
right to get one?
Abortion can not be used as an example because nobody can establish whether of not the killing of a fetus is immoral in the first place. Primarily because we can not define when life beings. Is it when the sperm contacts the egg, when genetic recombination occurs or at birth?
most hardline religious people insist that it is a sentient human being the very second the sperm fertilizes the egg. they seem to also insist that to kill said ball of embryonic cells should be considered 'murder'.
please rethink that because you look silly for even suggesting that god/morality is not THE driving force behind the abortion debate.
Here is an example:
I would propose that torturing animals is immoral. Therefore, bullfighting is immoral.
I would propose that the majority of meat and poultry sold in the u.s. is a direct byproduct of animal torture. confined and restricting cages and pens where they can barely move are no way for an animal to live. and then we KILL them? i think thats just wrong.
The fact that it is culturally acceptable in Spain means nothing except that the Spanish are wrong.
agreed, as america is wrong for supporting and patronizing a barbarous meat industry.
A moral relativist would argue that morality is determined by culture so therefore bull fighting is moral to Spaniards.
just as one of these moral relativist clowns would try to tell me that i have no right to tell them what they can and can't eat...based on what's culturally accepted and not on what is right.
FYI, the Spanish are talking about outlawing bull fighting on moral grounds - thank God.
could it simply be that an overwhelming majority of human beings don't want to see an animal suffer for entertainment? could it also be the just a century ago nobody really seemed to give a shit about it? would this then suggest that morality was invented sometime in the 1900's?
