Let me take your retort in sections so can address the many points you have made... I will re-quote what I address and underline it in the original quote...
Firstly
This is a strawman, I asked you to address the problem given to you as a hypothetical and instead you say assume it will never happen therefore it does not need addressing
Firstly
This is a strawman, I asked you to address the problem given to you as a hypothetical and instead you say assume it will never happen therefore it does not need addressing
and when you do poke at the problem, you insinuate that I am confusing objective and subjective... Let me re-quote what I said. "Here is a problem I would like you to address, lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?
The first question is, are you in the majority or non-majority, if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct..."
I never said it would be objective, I very clearly stated that it was subjective, and I defined my terms as well to try to prevent this confusion that you are so prone to get into.... I will redefine the terms as to hope I can prevent this confusion for the third time.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Can I please ask for future reference that you read my post twice before commenting? I think you might have skimmed over my post a little too quickly...
The first question is, are you in the majority or non-majority, if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct..."
I never said it would be objective, I very clearly stated that it was subjective, and I defined my terms as well to try to prevent this confusion that you are so prone to get into.... I will redefine the terms as to hope I can prevent this confusion for the third time.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Can I please ask for future reference that you read my post twice before commenting? I think you might have skimmed over my post a little too quickly...
When you ask the question "lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?" You are insinuating that there is an objective answer. It is not wrong or right. If you are just answering your own question in the next few sentences, "if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct. Then I don't know what you are actually asking me. Also, I do think your last line is incorrect. Judging on society, you would not say genocide is correct. Judging on the scoiety, you would see that the majority of the society regards genocide as morally acceptable. Nothing more. You would not judge it as correct based on society.
First off, you need to define pragmatic for me, because pragmatic in the English language means: a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
I find it funny that you just said, that it does not matter if morality is based upon truth or feelings because you are pragmatic...
But to counter you, yes it does change... Let's take for instance witch craft... There are tribes in Africa that kill albino's because they say their skin contains magical powers to protect them from aids... In their subjective morality, they deem this as correct, they see no problems with it. Now what are the consequences of this subjective action?
Firstly, there is no information to say the person was wrong for killing the albino.
Secondly, if you are to say the person is wrong, it does not matter because that person says it is correct (appeal to self) and his society says it is correct (appeal to majority)
Now lets say there is objective morality, and the person kills the albino for magical powers to protect him from aids.
First an innocent person died.
Second the guilty party will and should be tried.
Thirdly it influences and attributes to further killings, so there has to be measures taken to prevent this.
As you can see in a pragmatic view, you are wrong.
Firstly, there is no information to say the person was wrong for killing the albino.
Secondly, if you are to say the person is wrong, it does not matter because that person says it is correct (appeal to self) and his society says it is correct (appeal to majority)
Now lets say there is objective morality, and the person kills the albino for magical powers to protect him from aids.
First an innocent person died.
Second the guilty party will and should be tried.
Thirdly it influences and attributes to further killings, so there has to be measures taken to prevent this.
As you can see in a pragmatic view, you are wrong.
Thank you for saying this, but I never said it would be, I very clearly defined objective as I will again.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
When you say that it is a crime no matter what, I assumed you were saying that it would be considered illegal. A crime is something that breaks the law. If you meant that it would be immoral, my statement is unrelated, and I retract it.
I never said a person has to agree with society, not once... I will again quote my question for you.
"Here is a problem I would like you to address, lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?
The first question is, are you in the majority or non-majority, if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct..."
Again, do you see anywhere, where I said that a person has to agree with society, or that a person always agrees with society?
"Here is a problem I would like you to address, lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?
The first question is, are you in the majority or non-majority, if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct..."
Again, do you see anywhere, where I said that a person has to agree with society, or that a person always agrees with society?
So your answer as I take it is "NO" to my question?