Slimebeast said:
Rath said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
Because the cannibals are wrong of course. Duh.
|
But in their eyes murder and cannibalism was a perfectly fine thing to do. To them cannibals weren't wrong, they probably saw us as wrong for not being cannibals.
|
You don't seem to get it. How hard can it be? It doesn't matter if the cannibals thought murder and cannibalism was a perfectly fine thing to do because they did wrong!
|
But to them it simply wasn't wrong.
They did not share in your morals.
Another example; some people consider abortion morally wrong - murder in fact. Others consider denying a woman the right to control her body by refusing her the right to an abortion morally wrong. There is no absolute answer to this that is written in stone. Morals are not absolute.
|
To them it didn't seem wrong but it was wrong.
Abortion is a terrible example becase the premises for making the moral judgement are so different.
(the belief that a fetus is a child with a soul versus the belief that it's a lump of cells without awareness or identity).
|
You can't just keep arbitrarily saying that that it was wrong. To them it wasn't wrong, and because you think it is wouldn't mean squat to them.
You have very little justification for drawing a line and saying "nobody thinks that this is right past this point", when there is a group of people standing over the line looking back at you.
Tell me, what in your eyes would falsify moral absolution? Because all hypotheses have to have some way of falsifying them to see if they're correct. I think I gave sufficient evidence with my case, but now I want to know where you exactly set the bar.
