/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>11955533
>You can have people who might think murdering others is moral for whatever reason, but not only can have systems in place to suppress this behaviour
But the thing is, what right would you have to force your own moral viewpoints on others? I mean that as a genuine question. If everyone's moral views are equal in the sense that there exists no objective standard for their correctness, why and with what authority would you force others to adhere to your own standards? How exactly would everyone's moral viewpoints be more than just ordinary opinions?

>there is the capacity to reason that murdering is bad by some objective standard.
I'm somewhat confused by your last statement here. You said that we'd need some kind of an objective standard to judge actions as good or bad, but if there exists some kind of an objective standard by which the morality of an action can be measured, isn't that moral absolutism?

>You are operating from a biased standpoint.
Actually, you are right about that. The way I presented myself did presuppose a position in the matter. I may have used unnecessarily demeaning rhetoric as well and I apologize for that. That was entirely my own fault.

>they don't "lose" their meaning, they have the exact same meaning as always.
I think you are right about that.
Assuming you've always seen and defined morality from a relativistic viewpoint, the terms wouldn't lose anything. But from a objectivist perspective, the whole concept of morality would cease to exist, since there couldn't be any objective moral standard. It would become a lie.

How about we draw this to a close? Even though it's fun, we're getting ridiculously off-topic here.

I am having impure thoughts.