...None of which is objective. It's all just a matter of opinion and circumstance, not fact. So your opinion on human sacrifice is just your opinion, man.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Right or wrong religion?
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
The definition of scientific units, or definitions in mathematics then are also not objective by your criteria. They are also defined by humans.
If they can't be shown to exist outside the minds of humans.
Science units and mathematical definitions are "definitions" which necessarily are constructed by common agreement. Thus SI units or English units can both be used interchangeably. But both units are considered objective...i.e. they can be consistently and logically used without being affected by subjective judgement calls by the users. That is the only definition of objective that is used in sciences.
We're not talking about science. You made a moral claim as if it's fact. It's up to you to prove that it is objectively true, which you can't because no moral claims can be objectively proven. If it could, it would be able to be plainly shown and agreed upon, just as we agree that 1+1=2. So it is just your opinion that human sacrifice is wrong. Which is fine but you shouldn't pretend that it's anything more than that.
How do you go about proving something is objective or subjective? Provide an example of such a proof.
I am saying that the moral structure I defined (immoral actions are those that cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings) is objective as all morally relevant statements can be objectively quantified in its terms without subjective ambiguity given enough information.
For something to be objective, it has to be self-evident, a fact or obvious like the Sun rising in the east. I've never heard of your criteria for objectivity. You seem to just be focused on if it makes sense. I'm talking about if it is true and exists outside of abstract theories of behavior that humans have invented.
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
You can easily tell which religions are false by those that rely upon FEAR mongering to con people they HAVE to sign up or else their "god" will come after you.
Something is objective if it can be used (or applied or understood etc.) without subjective judgement calls.
So, for example, a second is an objective measure of time...while heartbeats aren't (as their rate vary from user to user and through different times and activity levels).
My definition of morality is objective in the same way. Suffering, and its intensity, can be unambiguously felt by sentient beings...and whether the action causing the suffering was avoidable or not can be determined with sufficient knowledge of the conditions during which the action was made.
Yeah, that's not any definition of objective I'm familiar with and is not the one that is commonly understood when the word is used. Either way, suffering and human sacrifice are two different things. How the person is killed is a different discussion. If you're saying it's wrong to cause any sort of suffering to any sentient being, then we're all on the level of murderers and your notion of morality is pretty useless.
Human sacrifice is suffering as it robs the possibility of living and experiencing joys of life itself.
So does any killing. Your idea of morality is practically useless, as I suspected.
Obviously killing is immoral. Next?
So it's immoral when soldiers and cops kill? It's immoral when the State executes criminals?
Killing in self-defence gets into the "unavoidable" clause in suffering. You have to prove in courts that you had no other option to save your life other than to kill.
Yes, aviodable wars are immoral. Most wars (except WWII) had been avoidable and hence immoral. State executing criminals is certainly immoral.
I'm not asking about courts. Is it immoral or not? You seem to be making exceptions like most do. I don't even agree with you. I think the State killing Ted Bundy was a great thing, for example.
If killing in self defense was unavoidable then its not immoral.See the definition:- immoral actions are those that cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings...and whether the action causing the suffering was avoidable or not can be determined with sufficient knowledge of the conditions during which the action was made.
There is nothing arbitrary here. If the action could not have been avoided, then the action is not immoral.
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
Oh, so you mean like thoughts. Given they can't be shown to exist outside the minds of humans.
At least I've never seen one on display anywhere, or even floating out of people's heads like cartoon bubbles.
Of course it's arbitary, since the killing of any human can be avoided. That's not even talking about non-human life. So your moral system is just as subjective as the rest.