LogFAQs > #973797495

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No, it doesnt. You just dont know what subjective means.

Under a subjective moral framework, each person has their values and beliefs about right and wrong, and all values held this way must be equally valid.

Says who?

Once you have this equality in validity, you acknowledge that what is right to one person is wrong to another, which means any given action is both right and wrong depending on who is viewing the action. In this way, you can't really define any action as right or wrong because every action is both. Since right and wrong are opposing concepts, you are saying A and Not A are both true.

You can still have morals and rules even though they are subjective.

So you're saying objectivity is involved and morality is objective?

No, morality is subjective by definition. The measuring of morality is human experience.

That's the problem though, if you have subjective morality, then there is no point to morality at all.

No, morals are extremely important and also subjective.

There is no value in a subjective moral framework because there is no measure of if an action is right or wrong. It's both at the same time.

Yes there is value in morality. The measuring is done by human experience.