Do people on the Right want the "less fortunate" to suffer and/or die?

Belch, you're 25 again!

 

How do you distinguish between less fortunate, and a $hit bum?

 

A "right" is whatever society defines it to be. There are no moral absolutes.

 

So if "society" said it was okay to cut your child's fingers off, one by one, that would be okay?

 

It wouldn't be okay with me. And if I lived in the 19th century, slavery wouldn't be okay with me, either.

But if a particular society collectively declared that a man can own another man or that you can amputate my child's fingers, then slavery and unwilling child amputation become rights.

 

So let me get this straight. If some people decide that they want to cut your child's fingers off one-by one, you're saying that this is okay?

 

Sorry, I'm not a moral relativist. The problem with moral relativism is that you end up not being able to condemn even the most horrific, inhumane acts imaginable, because you have no basis to do so. As I see you have done below with Longshot's finger example.

My theory for all moral relativists is that they have done something really really wrong and don't want to feel guilty about it, so they then have to justify all immoral acts by condemning judgement itself. The only evil then is to condemn someone for doing something wrong, to say to that person, "You were bad." But you know what? YOU WERE BAD. You should feel guilty.

 

Just when I was making plans for my retirement!

 

Step away from the golf cart.

 

Common sense.

 

So, just let it bleed, eh?

 

No. You need to read my post again.

 

I'm not sure how you define "moral relativist" or "moral absolutist." Morality is ultimately a product of evolution, even if the finer points result from reason and culture.

What is "objective morality," in your opinion? By what objective standard do you view something as right or wrong? I view murder as wrong based on a code of ethics ascertained through reason and emotion. A Muslim might believe himself righteous for slaughtering an apostate. The same Bible was used by both sides of the slave debate. Etc, etc.

 

What if they considered your child to be an apostate? Would that be okay?

 

A moral relativist is someone who says there are no moral absolutes. A moral absolutist is someone who says there are. "Objective morality" is changing the terminology. Morality obviously cannot be objective because that would change an "ought" to an "is". But since no one is bound to obey moral laws, morality cannot be an "is". Personally, having gone atheist so I cannot appeal to God (though I can appeal to the Ten Commandments as a good idea based on 6000 years of experience), I'm thrown back on Plato and his cave allegory. There is a capital M Morality that exists, like Beauty, Truth, Nobility, etc. We can't see it, but we can get glimpses of what it looks like. We try in our flawed way to work out what Morality is and create laws, mores, religions, traditions, and taboos to try to express what our view of Morality is, which becomes small m morality. Small m morality is subjective and subject to change, such as slavery, but Morality is forever constant, and we approach Morality as well as we can but never reach it, as it is an ideal. Since we are limited in our ability to know everything there is to know, it's important in considering what Morality is to learn from what our ancestors managed to work out by centuries of trial and error. In other words, let's not make the same mistakes they already made and corrected.

 

I wasn't asking for a definition.

 

No. Maybe you should read my post again.

 

You asked what "objective morality" meant to me. Sounds like a request for a definition.

 

Do fish want birds to suffer and die?

A serious question for any fish here.

 

Yes.