| Slimebeast said: No it's not. Read a bit about absolute morals first. Well, actually in philosophy books there might be something labeled "moral absolutism" but that's not what I'm refering to and you should have understood it by now, I'm talking about universal morals (they're absolute too). And your examples are bad because they're moral gray areas. With slavery and abortion you not only have very different premises - like I said one person believes it's a baby with a soul while the other believes it's a lump of cells without personality and value - you also have a significant benefit for the negative action. It's too difficult to dicuss those gray area scenarios at this point. One would say abortion is wrong because it kills an individual while the counter argument is that you save a mother and an unwanted child from miserable lives. Stick to drastic examples. Like torturing babies without benefit (other than let's say a mild pleasure for the perpetrator because he gets some kind of kick from watching other organisms suffer). Show me how that is not wrong. |
There are no gray areas in moral absolutism.
Infant genital mutilation to no apparent end is also fairly widespread.
This idea of "universal morality" is about as specious as yoru old argument that all cultures in human history abhorred homosexuality. Which is to say it is completely ando bjectively wrong, and you are being dogmatically wrong by adhering to it.
