Gggg102:

if you become the majority, you make your own law.

And when I do become the majority, I most surely do, and it's what I've done already, which is why here in UK anyone can be a homosexual if that is what they want to be. No one will arrest them for being homosexuals. I even went as far as making it illegal for you to abuse them for being homosexual, not employ them for being homosexual or for you to treat a homosexual any different to how you would treat a heterosexual person. And if you break my laws, I most definitely throw you in jail, or at least impose a fine on you for it, and get you to pay compensation to the homosexual that you offended as well!

It's about time society was disabused of the idea that there's some God in heaven condemning people don't you think? God can wait till they arrive in heaven or hell and impose God law there. Down here on earth, at least in the UK part of it and other more enlightened nations, it's power to buda and her majority, and not some God no one has seen who art in some heaven no one has been to!

Gggg102:


god could have fixed it and allowed us the freedom to delude ourselves, storing up the consequences of disobeying his fixed law.

God could have, but God didn't! And by God not so doing, my free will prevails to change it as I see fit!

Gggg102:

the law can be moral to one and immoral to the other. in a subjective world, which of the two opinion is the truth?

Yes, the law can be perceived (denoting subjectivity) to be morally right or wrong. I, for instance, consider Nigerians anti-gay laws immoral and also abhorrent, and I'm certain you consider UK's pro-gay laws the same way.

Truth according to what or whom however?

Gggg102:

no-one has to swerve to the law. if you had to swerve to the law, the law would be constant. you won't be able to change the law.

So you go to court and present your independently subjectively chosen 'law' and the court swerves, right? I wonder!

What you're saying is if in Nigeria, I am arrested for being homosexual, say, caught in the act too, I just tell the judge that I passed a law yesterday making homosexuality legal, and the judge would say "buda, you not guilty, you may go now". I wonder why I'm giving my self a headache over that law then!

Please forgive me for not taking your word on this. I want a second opinion! You know I like my evidence. And if you just happen to be evily misleading me here, the prize to pay is not exactly small!

tintingz:
The person can be harmful base on both objective and subjective morality in the society.

A terrorists is harmful objectively and subjectively to the society, a terrorists think he's morally good subjectively in his opinion or influenced, that's his opinion and the society doesn't pamper or condone a terrorists dangerous activities. If he can picture himself doing the terrorism acts, he will see how dangerous he's to himself and if he does not he's still dangerous.

Majority people doing dangerous acts knows they are morally evil, but because of some personal or subjective reason they became bias, hypocritical or emotionless towards it. Even a villain knows he's Evil.

Like i said Morality is complex, humans are not perfect!

There are people who are apathetic toward some things.

Lol, my morality is not tied to the society, but we're bound to the laws of the society, the law is mostly concern about the negative action or decision expressed publicly in the society, apart of theocratic countries that think thier version of God is the absolute moral, Secular laws don't dictate how you should dress moderately or how you should show kindness.

I think vegetarians are kind of hypocritical, the process of getting electricity, oil, cloths material which they benefit from is as result of killing animals.

Either way, animals are still part of the societal environment, they believe preserving the animals is morally good, anyways it's a positive ideology as long as they are not behaving violence about it.

Are we talking about opinion or action? My premises is more about actions or expression, your opinion is your opinion.

If you're in your room saying I will bomb Lagos bridge, that's your opinion your thoughts, but if you come on social media expressing it then you're a threat to the society, the law doesn't care about your moral position on it.

In Saudi Arabia, if an apostate come out to denounce the Religion, he will be killed even when he's not a threat, now that kinda law lack human values because it's base on ancient laws.

Laws change, empathy evolve so also morality.

Yes, that's where facts comes in.

do you believe morality is objective?

if a terrorist is harmful objectively, then it is a fact that he is harmful.

if a terrorist is harmful subjectively, then it is just opinion. the terrorist could feel he is good subjectively. it is all opinion.
he could feel his dangerous ways are moral.

not all villains think they are evil. some think they are good. e. g thanos. he believes he is doing good. subjectively, his stance on morality is as valid as yours.

the apathetic people could develop their subjective morality from their apathy.


one could feel that the law is immoral according to his subjective definition of morality. a Muslim can challenge the law if it allows what he considers as Haram. you could challenge the law if it allows what you consider as immoral.
to another person, kindness could be immoral. these are all subjective views. whatever one considers as truth is truth for that one.


but the vegetarian feel he is moral and you immoral. you feel you are moral and him hypocritical. there is no way to resolve who is truly moral without an objective clear cut definition of morality.

is eating of meat moral or immoral?
is your answer based on subjectivity or objectivity?

more of opinion on an action.
my opinion on murder might be that it is good while yours might be that it is evil.
if I see someone murder another I will commend why you would condemn.
if morality is subjective, both our opinions on murder would be equally valid.

and the laws moral position might be wrong according to me.

e. g if slavery was legal today and you say you would make it illegal, the law can attack you.

if morality is subjective, modern laws are no better than ancient laws. this is because we are biased in our consideration of good. you can't give an objective answer on which is better.

laws change. anything can become legal or illegal. the law holds no value in determining morality. not everyone gets morality from empathy. my morality could be based on selfishness and you would have no ground to judge my morality if morality is subjective.

budaatum:

So you go to court and present your independently subjectively chosen 'law' and the court swerves, right? I wonder!

What you're saying is if in Nigeria, I am arrested for being homosexual, say, caught in the act too, I just tell the judge that I passed a law yesterday making homosexuality legal, and the judge would say "buda, you not guilty, you may go now". I wonder why I'm giving my self a headache over that law then!

Please forgive me for not taking your word on this. I want a second opinion! You know I like my evidence. And if you just happen to be evily misleading me here, the prize to pay is not exactly small!

you can do that if you pass the law.

that's exactly what happened when homosexuality was made legal.

TOSIN116:

Direct answer
It fell!
It just fell!
Not from the sky,
Not from the moon,
It just fell!


Alternate answer

Why do we have google?
surf for it yourself or locate your nearest bookshop that sells Christian materials.
if you still don't know contact me.

How can Google give u info about the origin of the bible which is about 550 years old

PrecisionFx:




How can Google give u info about the origin of the bible which is about 550 years old

You use Google to search for websites which provides such info.

Gggg102:

if a terrorist is harmful objectively, then it is a fact that he is harmful.

if a terrorist is harmful subjectively, then it is just opinion. the terrorist could feel he is good subjectively.

You must be a very stubborn individual who feels taking correction is a sign of weakness!

How the heck is the harm done by a terrorist objective or subjective please? Do you mean objective or subjective to the terrorist, or objective or subjective to the people harmed? Does either mean the infliction of a different sort of harm? If people died in the act, are they objectively dead or subjectively dead? Do we really care what the terrorist's opinion is? Do we not condemn the bastard anyway and string him up regardless of what he thinks and or his opinion? Or does the terrorist's act of terrorism diminish because his mind is warped?

Gggg102, I do admire your tenacity. I play chess and this conversation with you is no different to a 99 move game, and I've enjoyed it. But there comes a time when the defeated has to concede, though I'm aware this is no game with perfectly defined rules and an endgame like chess. But now you've descended to just making it up as you go along. And that, if nothing else, is immoral in my opinion, not that you need consider my opinion, I know, after all, it's just my subjective opinion. But imagine if people were to accept what you're saying here. Would you be pleased?

I would advise you learn more about the phrases and words you use. Objectivity and subjectivity is a very good one, because any one who even tries to understand what they mean ends up being better off for it. And there is a clear difference between morality and the law. It's easy to think one is being objective while their subjectivity gets in the way. But at least be honest to yourself so you don't end up leading yourself astray.

Enjoy Sunday.

TOSIN116:

You use Google to search for websites which provides such info.

U seem not to read any of my initial statements.

websites on the internet that came into existence few years ago cannot offer any info on a 600 year history.

Show me any meaningful proof about bible origin..

PrecisionFx:





U seem not to read any of my initial statements.

websites on the internet that came into existence few years ago cannot offer any info on a 600 year history.

Show me any meaningful proof about bible origin..

proofs like what?

Gggg102:

do you believe morality is objective?

In reality, No.

if a terrorist is harmful objectively, then it is a fact that he is harmful.

if a terrorist is harmful subjectively, then it is just opinion. the terrorist could feel he is good subjectively. it is all opinion.
he could feel his dangerous ways are moral.

A terrorists can feel he's good that's his opinion but not when he expressed it publicly, that's no longer his opinion.

not all villains think they are evil. some think they are good. e. g thanos. he believes he is doing good. subjectively, his stance on morality is as valid as yours.

Did you still remember the scene when Thanos killed Gamora, how he was emotionally down and even said I'm sorry? He knows what he was doing is wrong but he's all greedy and bound to his "destiny".

the apathetic people could develop their subjective morality from their apathy.

And also objective.

one could feel that the law is immoral according to his subjective definition of morality. a Muslim can challenge the law if it allows what he considers as Haram. you could challenge the law if it allows what you consider as immoral.
to another person, kindness could be immoral. these are all subjective views. whatever one considers as truth is truth for that one.

Yes.

We can as well suspend our subjective view on what's true and use objective view.

but the vegetarian feel he is moral and you immoral. you feel you are moral and him hypocritical. there is no way to resolve who is truly moral without an objective clear cut definition of morality.

Yes, it's a feeling, thoughts, opinion.

is eating of meat moral or immoral?
is your answer based on subjectivity or objectivity?

This is more of a complex case.

Is a lion eating meat morally good to him?

When we look at evolution and nature are Humans carnivorous, harbivorous and ominivorous, I think the answer will determine which is moral.

more of opinion on an action.
my opinion on murder might be that it is good while yours might be that it is evil.
if I see someone murder another I will commend why you would condemn.
if morality is subjective, both our opinions on murder would be equally valid.

and the laws moral position might be wrong according to me.

If that person murder your relatives, will you still commend the person?

e. g if slavery was legal today and you say you would make it illegal, the law can attack you.

Yes and that doesn't mean I can't achieve my goal of illegalizing slavery, Abraham Lincoln did it, he proved to the people slavery is wrong.

if morality is subjective, modern laws are no better than ancient laws. this is because we are biased in our consideration of good. you can't give an objective answer on which is better.

To you the behaviors of the past can be worse and babaric but to the people of the past, we don't know how they would view our today's behavior, we don't know what the future will be.

A slave master time travel to the future and finds out slavery is abolished, will it find it morally good or bad? It's up to his experience.

laws change. anything can become legal or illegal. the law holds no value in determining morality. not everyone gets morality from empathy. my morality could be based on selfishness and you would have no ground to judge my morality if morality is subjective.

Like I said laws doesn't tell you how to be moral, law are enforced on what's negatively expressed publicly.

budaatum:

You must be a very stubborn individual who feels taking correction is a sign of weakness!

How the heck is the harm done by a terrorist objective or subjective please? Do you mean objective or subjective to the terrorist, or objective or subjective to the people harmed? Does either mean the infliction of a different sort of harm? If people died in the act, are they objectively dead or subjectively dead? Do we really care what the terrorist's opinion is? Do we not condemn the bastard anyway and string him up regardless of what he thinks and or his opinion? Or does the terrorist's act of terrorism diminish because his mind is warped?

Gggg102, I do admire your tenacity. I play chess and this conversation with you is no different to a 99 move game, and I've enjoyed it. But there comes a time when the defeated has to concede, though I'm aware this is no game with perfectly defined rules and an endgame like chess. But now you've descended to just making it up as you go along. And that, if nothing else, is immoral in my opinion, not that you need consider my opinion, I know, after all, it's just my subjective opinion. But imagine if people were to accept what you're saying here. Would you be pleased?

I would advise you learn more about the phrases and words you use. Objectivity and subjectivity is a very good one, because any one who even tries to understand what they mean ends up being better off for it. And there is a clear difference between morality and the law. It's easy to think one is being objective while their subjectivity gets in the way. But at least be honest to yourself so you don't end up leading yourself astray.

Enjoy Sunday.

the harm done by the terrorist could be considered good by the terrorist.
if majority of the people are like the terrorist, he won't be condemned. the society would view it as normal.

the only reason the society condemns the terrorist is that the subjective opinion of the majority is that terrorism is evil.
if the subjective opinion of the majority is that terrorism is good, the terrorist won't be condemned.

tintingz:
In reality, No.

A terrorists can feel he's good that's his opinion but not when he expressed it publicly, that's no longer his opinion.

Did you still remember the scene when Thanos killed Gamora, how he was emotionally down and even said I'm sorry? He knows what he was doing is wrong but he's all greedy and bound to his "destiny".

And also objective.

Yes.

We can as well suspend our subjective view on what's true and use objective view.


Yes, it's a feeling, thoughts, opinion.

This is more of a complex case.

Is a lion eating meat morally good to him?

When we look at evolution and nature are Humans carnivorous, harbivorous and ominivorous, I think the answer will determine which is moral.

If that person murder your relatives, will you still commend the person?

Yes and that doesn't mean I can't achieve my goal of illegalizing slavery, Abraham Lincoln did it, he proved to the people slavery is wrong.

To you the behaviors of the past can be worse and babaric but to the people of the past, we don't know how they would view our today's behavior, we don't know what the future will be.

A slave master time travel to the future and finds out slavery is abolished, will it find it morally good or bad? It's up to his experience.

Like I said laws doesn't tell you how to be moral, law are enforced on what's negatively expressed publicly.

a slave master can travel to the future and say it is bad that slavery is abolished.

imagine two neighboring societies.

in one, slavery is moral and homosexuality is immoral , and in the other, slavery is immoral and homosexuality is moral.

which of the two societies is right?

budaatum:

Yes, the law can be perceived (denoting subjectivity) to be morally right or wrong. I, for instance, consider Nigerians anti-gay laws immoral and also abhorrent, and I'm certain you consider UK's pro-gay laws the same way.

Truth according to what or whom however?

the general truth. not my subjective truth or your subjective truth. the real truth irrespective of our subjective views.

the part of my post you struck out is where my argument lies.

budaatum:

God could have, but God didn't! And by God not so doing, my free will prevails to change it as I see fit!

Christians and most theists believe god fixed it. you changing it according to your freewill doesn't change the real truth.

e. g. god fixed it that fornication is bad. if anyone fornicates, then he is immoral.
if you use your freewill to change your opinion to make fornication moral, it would not change the fixed position that homosexuality is bad. you only deceive yourself and you'll face punishment when the time comes.

same way shouting banana banana doesn't make an apple a banana.
(using the current definitions of apples and bananas).
or same way 1+1=2 (base10, current usage of the symbols) even if you declare that 1+1=65 (base 10, current usage of the symbols). your subjective truth does not change the objective truth.

Gggg102:

Christians and most theists believe god fixed it.

Good afternoon. This is the point where I ask you to go back and read what we've been discussing. All along, the underlying assumption of your entire position is that the existence of gods is an objective reality. You've skirted around it plenty, but it's always been there, and we see it despite you not coming out and saying it. But, now you have, so here we go.

You see, "Christians and most theists believe", is just another subjective position held by subjective people, and anything said by them relating to god is subjective. Certain words give you away, you see.

The subjective position, "Christian and theist", subjectively "believes", that "gods" (an ideas based on a subjective position) "fixed" it.

But note how the one single response of mine that you subjectively chose to ignore is how did god fix it's very first 1+1?!

You can subjectively believe whatever you wish to believe, but much more than "believing" is required to make things objectively real! As you've rightly stated here:

Gggg102:

shouting banana banana doesn't make an apple a banana.

TOSIN116:
proofs like what?

Proof like proof.

Gggg102:


a slave master can travel to the future and say it is bad that slavery is abolished.

imagine two neighboring societies.

in one, slavery is moral and homosexuality is immoral , and in the other, slavery is immoral and homosexuality is moral.

which of the two societies is right?

A slave master can travel to the future and finds out slavery is wrong and he was wrong and a bad person all this while.

As for your question, since Science has shown Homosexuality is part of sexual orientation there's no basis of morality there.

Non of the societies are right, in my subjective view.

If 1 really equalled 937, and 2 = ⅛ and + really meant multiply and = meant -, then 1+1≠2 is, in case you are not aware, what you are claiming here!

Gggg102:


the harm done by the terrorist could be considered good by the terrorist.
if majority of the people are like the terrorist, he won't be condemned. the society would view it as normal.

the only reason the society condemns the terrorist is that the subjective opinion of the majority is that terrorism is evil.
if the subjective opinion of the majority is that terrorism is good, the terrorist won't be condemned.

I just happen to live in this objective real world and not the imaginary subjective alternative one you keep harping on about, so sorry I'm not entertaining you, or it.

Gggg102:


the general truth. not my subjective truth or your subjective truth. the real truth irrespective of our subjective views.

the part of my post you struck out is where my argument lies.

Note how I struck it out instead of deleting it. In morality, and laws, to a certain extent, truth is irrelevant. They are subjective positions held at subjective points in time.

If I hold your head under water for five minutes, without you using underwater breathing apparatus, it is indisputably true that you will pass out and die, and no one's opinion or beliefs can change this fact.

The law can be said to be as true as this (with some qualifications, however) in the sense of "if you commit a crime, you will be caught and punished". But whether the law you are caught for is true or not is an oxymoronic idea any further than the truth that such a law exists.

You see, when discussing objectivity and subjectivity, one has to be mindful of the error or speaking from one's very own subjective position. It's a common mistake that you share with many who think they are being objective!

budaatum:

Good afternoon. This is the point where I ask you to go back and read what we've been discussing. All along, the underlying assumption of your entire position is that the existence of gods is an objective reality. You've skirted around it plenty, but it's always been there, and we see it despite you not coming out and saying it. But, now you have, so here we go.

You see, "Christians and most theists believe", is just another subjective position held by subjective people, and anything said by them relating to god is subjective. Certain words give you away, you see.

The subjective position, "Christian and theist", subjectively "believes", that "gods" (an ideas based on a subjective position) "fixed" it.

But note how the one single response of mine that you subjectively chose to ignore is how did god fix it's very first 1+1?!

You can subjectively believe whatever you wish to believe, but much more than "believing" is required to make things objectively real! As you've rightly stated here:

there are two underlying assumptions in my argument.
1. the existence of god is an objective reality. I. e god actually exists.

2. the existence of god is not an objective reality I. e god doesn't exist.

if 1. is the case, morality is objective. your opinion on morality doesn't change the objective morality set by god. even if you decide to set your own truth, your truth is a lie according to the objective standard.


if 2. is the case, morality is subjective. morality is then what you wish it to be. everybody is free to set their truth and their truth will be truths. since there is no objective standard, none of their truth is actually true and none of their truth is a lie.

you can't judge truthfulness without an objective standard on what truth is.

let's say in both 1. and 2., homosexuality is immoral. in 1. based on god and in 2. based on most popular opinion in the society.

in 1. even if everyone agrees that homosexuality is moral, they could change their laws to accommodate homosexuality, in their eyes, homosexuality is now moral any homosexual is now moral, but in that reality, homosexuality remains immoral. there is a fixed standard that human opinion can't change.

in 2. if everyone agrees that homosexuality is moral, then Homosexuality becomes moral. they could change their laws to accommodate homosexuality, homosexuality would be viewed as moral, Evey homosexual would be moral. homosexuality being moral would be their truth, and since there is no standard to judge what truth is, there is no standard to shows their truth is false, their truth can be anything they make it to be.

Gggg102:

there are two underlying assumptions in my argument.
1. the existence of god is an objective reality. I. e god actually exists.

2. the existence of god is not an objective reality I. e god doesn't exist.

There is only one assumption in the position you have held all through this discussion and we both know that it is "the existence of god is an objective reality. I. e god actually exists". You don't need to deny it nor try and make out it isn't, you will fail!

However, it is not a premise I share, and would propose a separate thread be started if you have the desire to engage in a discussion of it. You know I'm good for it and never tire.

My position regarding gods, in case you don't know, is clearly stated and goes as follows:

"Gods are the figments of the imaginations of those who create them in their minds. Gods do not exist outside the minds that create them."

Do note the various references to the "subjective" in that statement please! And also, that it is my subjective opinion!

budaatum:

Note how I struck it out instead of deleting it. In morality, and laws, to a certain extent, truth is irrelevant. They are subjective positions held at subjective points in time.

If I hold your head under water for five minutes, without you using underwater breathing apparatus, it is indisputably true that you will pass out and die, and no one's opinion or beliefs can change this fact.

The law can be said to be as true as this (with some qualifications, however) in the sense of "if you commit a crime, you will be caught and punished". But whether the law you are caught for is true or not is an oxymoronic idea any further than the truth that such a law exists.

You see, when discussing objectivity and subjectivity, one has to be mindful of the error or speaking from one's very own subjective position. It's a common mistake that you share with many who think they are being objective!

as truth is irrelevant, anything can become moral and anything can become moral. there is no right or wrong in what is moral or what is immoral. this is my point exactly.

one's morality cannot be righter than the other.

a society that believes homosexuality is moral and one that believes it is immoral are equally right.

budaatum:

There is only one assumption in the position you have held all through this discussion and we both know that it is "the existence of god is an objective reality. I. e god actually exists". You don't need to deny it nor try and make out it isn't, you will fail!

However, it is not a premise I share, and would propose a separate thread be started if you have the desire to engage in a discussion of it. You know I'm good for it and never tire.

My position regarding gods, in case you don't know, is clearly stated and goes as follows:

"Gods are the figments of the imaginations of those who create them in their minds. God's do not exist outside the minds that create them."

Do note the various references to the "subjective" in that statement please! And also, that it is my subjective opinion!

I made use of both assumptions. if you are not convinced, you can check my first post in the other thread.

I said that morality is subjective realistically but it should be objective ideally.

PrecisionFx:
Proof like proof.

bulletproof or waterproof?

Gggg102:


as truth is irrelevant, anything can become moral and anything can become moral. there is no right or wrong in what is moral or what is immoral. this is my point exactly.

one's morality cannot be righter than the other.

a society that believes homosexuality is moral and one that believes it is immoral are equally right.

They may be equally "right", but that in no way implies "truth"! Nor are both societies equally moral or immoral in this instance. The rational reasons for either's stance have to be considered before one jumps to such a conclusion.

In UK, a nation that has a whole lot of history condemning homosexuality, it has been found that the fact that a person is a homosexual does not make them a bad person or a threat to society. A look back at how laws banning homosexuality have been implemented have also shown how ridiculous it is to police those who engage in the act. Then there's the harm that has been done by accusing homosexuals of being immoral and imprisoning them. And there's the fact that resources that are best used elsewhere are wasted in finding, judging and imprisoning homosexuals. And there's the bigotry promoted against homosexuals for having such laws! And besides, being a nation of Christian heritage, should one really be casting stones at homosexuals when the stone casters themselves commit sins of their own which may be doing way much more harm than the homosexuals do? UK determined that the answers to these questions all fall in the negative so they made a decision to abandon such laws on moral grounds.

Nigeria, I am sure have their own reasons for instigating such laws about a hundred years after UK abandoned it. But who out of the two nations, is right depends on the subjective view and criteria of the person deciding. And in my subjective position Nigeria is wrong, and in your subjective opinion UK is wrong. But I expect Nigeria to behave the way they have, after all, Nigeria, to date has not imprisoned a single person for homosexuality, which does not mean people do not engage in homosexuality in Nigeria. Nor does Nigeria have any historical data on homosexuality, which goes to show how difficult and absurd it is to assume to police people's bedrooms! I expect this silly law that Nigeria has passed against homosexuality would lapse for this very reason.

Nothing 'true' applies apart from the validity of the rationale behind their decisions.

Please stop accusing me of disrespecting you by disregarding the immense amount of effort you apply in responding to me! The fact that I bother to respond back, hopefully respectfully, should be enough to disabuse you of any such ideas!

Gggg102:

I said that morality is subjective realistically but it should be objective ideally.

We all wish we lived in an "ideal should world". Thieves would not exist, no one would be murdered, everyone would have enough to eat and we'd all have proper functioning minds in my "should" world. But I live in the real world where no amount of "shoulds" apply apart from my own powers to make it so.

Morality could be spoken about in an "ideal should" sense. But the morals of subjective individuals is not subject to such pie in the sky notions. By golly, do even I fail to morally live up to the ideal I cook up in my head, how much less can others live up to my ideals! I can't impose my "should" on your morality, and nor can you impose your's on me. We both have the willpower to make choices for ourselves and do.

Do let me know if we are talking about how things "should" be as opposed to how they really are. I'm sure I can be sufficiently versatile as to somehow imagine a world where pigs fly.

budaatum:

They may be equally "right", but that in no way implies "truth"! Nor are both societies equally moral or immoral in this instance. The rational reasons for either's stance have to be considered before one jumps to such a conclusion.

In UK, a nation that has a whole lot of history condemning homosexuality, it has been found that the fact that a person is a homosexual does not make them a bad person or a threat to society. A look back at how laws banning homosexuality have been implemented have also shown how ridiculous it is to police those who engage in the act. Then there's the harm that has been done by accusing homosexuals of being immoral and imprisoning them. And there's the fact that resources that are best used elsewhere are wasted in finding, judging and imprisoning homosexuals. And there's the bigotry promoted against homosexuals for having such laws! And besides, being a nation of Christian heritage, should one really be casting stones at homosexuals when the stone casters themselves commit sins of their own which may be doing way much more harm than the homosexuals do? UK determined that the answers to these questions all fall in the negative so they made a decision to abandon such laws on moral grounds.

Nigeria, I am sure have their own reasons for instigating such laws about a hundred years after UK abandoned it. But who out of the two nations, is right depends on the subjective view and criteria of the person deciding. And in my subjective position Nigeria is wrong, and in your subjective opinion UK is wrong. But I expect Nigeria to behave the way they have, after all, Nigeria, to date has not imprisoned a single person for homosexuality, which does not mean people do not engage in homosexuality in Nigeria. Nor does Nigeria have any historical data on homosexuality, which goes to show how difficult and absurd it is to assume to police people's bedrooms! I expect this silly law that Nigeria has passed against homosexuality would lapse for this very reason.

Nothing 'true' applies apart from the validity of the rationale behind their decisions.

how do you determine the validity of a rationale.
one's decision might be completely irrational but since morality is subjective, they can apply any rationale they wish, either valid or invalid.

or is validity of a rationale some kind of objective standpoint on which one can judge morality?

budaatum:
Please stop accusing me of disrespecting you by disregarding the immense amount of effort you apply in responding to me! The fact that I bother to respond back, hopefully respectfully, should be enough to disabuse you of any such ideas!


We all wish we lived in an "ideal should world". Thieves would not exist, no one would be murdered, everyone would have enough to eat and we'd all have proper functioning minds in my "should" world. But I live in the real world where no amount of "shoulds" apply apart from my own powers to make it so.

Morality could be spoken about in an "ideal should" sense. But the morals of subjective individuals is not subject to such pie in the sky notions. By golly, do even I fail to morally live up to the ideal I cook up in my head, how much less can others live up to my ideals! I can't impose my "should" on your morality, and nor can you impose your's on me. We both have the willpower to make choices for ourselves and do.

Do let me know if we are talking about how things "should" be as opposed to how they really are. I'm sure I can be sufficiently versatile as to somehow imagine a world where pigs fly.

I am comparing how things should be versus how they are.

to me, in an ideal world, stealing would be bad irrespective of your opinion as an individual or a society.
I. e stealing is always bad.

in reality, the morality of stealing is determined by individuals in form of societal consensus, to be whatever they wish it to be.
I. e stealing may be good today and bad tomorrow.

Gggg102:


I am comparing how things should be versus how they are.

to me, in an ideal world, stealing would be bad irrespective of your opinion as an individual or a society.
I. e stealing is always bad.

in reality, the morality of stealing is determined by individuals in form of societal consensus, to be whatever they wish it to be.
I. e stealing may be good today and bad tomorrow.

Good. But mind that in the real world where subjective individuals operate, morality, and the law to some extent, is subjective, as you know, since it is determined by subjective individuals for subjective individuals.

budaatum:

Good. But mind that in the real world where subjective individuals operate, morality, and the law to some extent, is subjective, as you know, since it is determined by subjective individuals for subjective individuals.

yes and that is my issue with morality. being determined by subjective individuals, it can be taken advantage of to make one moral whatever the situation may be.

I would prefer an objective one. morality that is consistent irrespective of of human subjectivity.