Fleiur
Well-known member
Any violence done in the name of Christianity is done contrary to its tenets, tenets that your own beliefs are based on in some way if you are a Westerner.Meanwhile, I say that organized religion is wrong. All the violence done in its name, its rejection of science, and the abuses perpetrated by those it gives power over others to proves me right. That's the issue with claiming that something is objectively moral; there's no shortage of justifications one can point to for one's own beliefs on what is and is not moral, and if it was truly objective, we wouldn't be arguing about it with each other. The simple fact that I don't agree with you that free love is wrong (or rather, its original form as the belief that the state had no business meddling in sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery), and you don't agree that organized religion is wrong, despite the evidence each of us presents to justify our beliefs, is itself proof that trying to determine objective morality is far more difficult than you assumed.
Consider this; we can both agree that murder is morally reprehensible, correct? Now consider the trolley problem; pulling the lever, killing one to save five, is murder. Or rather, I believe it would be murder; many would disagree with me on that, but that's how I interpret the thought experiment. It would be murder to kill one person to save five, so I would not pull the lever. In the end though, our positions are not morally equivalent; because you and I are not equivalent. I believe certain things are wrong, you believe that other things are; and society is about reconciling those differences, finding compromises where possible, but also punishing those who do what the majority have decided is immoral.
We hold arbitrary violence to be wrong. Yet, what if society approved of arbitrary violence as SJWs would have it? If that happened, would you stand against it? What right would you have to oppose it if society's purpose is to punish what the majority deems immoral?