It would come from a supreme law giver who defined truth. |
Which is...?
The law's existence say nothing of HOW you arrived at the conclusions you did. |
The fact that laws as a whole exist implies that morality is not absolute. If it was, there would be no need for laws. Everyone would just agree on the correct course of action in any given situation.
Since we can't always agree (e.g. you think abortion immoral and I disagree), we have laws, which dictate which behaviors are not permissible and suitable deterrents against engaging in them. Regardless of our opinion on abortion, in any given jurisdiction it's either legal or illegal.
HOW can you distinguish? you keep telling me you can - I hear that as magic! Plus you don't need morality so why are we having a debate about morality and it's effects on actions such as abortion? That is just useless. After all you, don't need it to decide so you have another mechanism for deciding - pain and pleasure I assume or magic? Notice that YOUR pain and YOUR pleasure are based on YOUR perceptions because they are your senses. This involves your perceptions so it is based on YOUR subjective truth because it is what YOU feel. I have no idea what you feel so I had no input. |
That's fine. I honestly do not care in the least to convince you of my internal mental states. I'm telling you I can; you can take it leave it.
So stimuli (senses - sensory) is the basis of your moral decision mechanisms? |
Defending yourself from harm has nothing,
nothing, to do with morality. Do you know what the withdrawal reflex is? It's an automatic response in the human (and other) nervous system that's triggered when a nociceptor detects a painful stimulus, such as a burn or a cut. It's mediated by the spinal cord before the brain even receives the pain signal. Are you going to argue that the spinal cord has a moral code?
By your definition ay operation or inoculation against disease is evil. |
By my definition of what, exactly? I never defined anything. All I said is that an animal doesn't need a moral code to distinguish pleasure from pain and to defend itself. What am I defining when I say that?
We did not get off track. I said that IF ad ONLY if we are in a subjective society that the definition of "bad" outcomes has no definition. |
Yes. That's exactly what we observe in everyday reality. Most people think murder is wrong, a few don't. Some people think stealing is wrong, some don't. Some people think taking drugs is wrong, some don't. Some people think speeding is wrong, some don't. Some people think abortion is wrong, some don't.
Your senses told you it was bad for YOU - your senses don't bother me so I could care less of what conclusion you came to. And since your sense only inform YOU they are by definition subjective - you ae the only observer that can receive that info. |
If you try to harm me I'm going to try to stop you or to run away from you. There's no moral code telling me that, it's just that I don't want to be harmed. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Your decisions are going to decide our laws and I have to deal with it. Don't think I like that outcome much. |
If you don't like a country's laws you are free to choose to live in a different country, after doing the appropriate paperwork. If you don't like the laws of any country then you're free to go live in the wilderness by yourself. As long as you live in a society you will need to follow some rules.