Wrong jingram. Morality and law exist because of human wants. It is our desire for a fair and equitable world that lays down a foundation for morality and law. But ultimately these are still established by popular concensus. Of course nature reminds us everyday that morality and human law do not extend to the greater world. Morality and law, established through popular will, exist ONLY in the human world!
Exactly. The basic desires, fears and wants of the human organism don't change because of superfluous factors. I take objective to mean 'universal to humanity' rather than 'absolute natural law'. Of course 'morality' doesn't extend to animals that aren't 'sapient' on the same level humanity, and possibly some other higher mammals, are. At one time, a majority of people believed that it was 'okay' to keep others as slaves because of their ethnicity. That didn't actually make it moral to do so, however.
There is absolutely no such thing as objective morality! None! There is however such a thing as "popular morality" - and for humans like us that demand fairness and equity this can be a good thing for us. But we must put in effort to make such a world possible . . . Invest time and energy to build this world. However, "popular morality" is NOT - and NEVER WILL BE - Objective morality. I assure you, many living things you have consumed to preserve your own life expereinced pain and objected to your slaughter with actions. Your own barbaric desire for life ended theirs!
Morality does not extend beyond the human world of wants and ideas. But it still has a place for creatures like us that demand a good, kind, and generous world.
Abyteofbrain said: "If morality is subjective, all government is tyranny."
Yes. All government IS TYRANNY! With our actions we inflict our tyranny on living things in the natural world non-stop. But ultimately we have to decide what moral tyranny we will support, because a civilization that strives for fairness and equality must still have fundamental rules and laws.
It depends on what definition of "morality" you are using.
Morality has two definitions. There is "descriptive morality" and "normative morality".
Descriptive morality is obvious relative, because it means moral beliefs, beliefs about right and wrong and not the real thing, not what actually is right and wrong.
Normative morality on the other hand is what is actually right and wrong. And so it's nonsensical to say that morality in the normative sense is relative. The only reasonable positions on normative morality to take are moral objectivism (the belief that there are objectively true rights and wrongs) and moral nihilism (the belief that normative normality does not exist).
I like the picture, this is a great basis for the argument. The lion that is doing the killing is purely justified. It was created (either through evolution, or creationism in this case) to kill other animals that it may have the nutrition that it needs to survive. But to the Zebra, it would be considered wrong. It was walking around, grazing, drinking water, etc... When it caught some form of hint of danger. It was then chased down, killed, and ripped to pieces and fed upon. And as the lion would not do a quick kill for the zebra' sake of mind, the zebra has a chance of still being alive when it is started to be fed upon.