Well perfection in this case is completely subjective. So how can there a perfect place? Well if everyone was thinking the same way, then yes, a perfect place could exists.
If someone doesn't accept something and its objective then they're close minded or in denial. Let's say a man robs someone. let us imagine that in some weird world this is fine to do because in this weird world if you do not defend yourself or if beaten then that person has a right to take it from you based on your weakness. let's say that this is their culture. Here is my point...
Problem 1: Stealing is wrong. Why? Because stealing can cause discomfort, pain, unwanted feelings, and they're being forced to have something taken away from them.
Morally Subjective is when an idea or thought is totally based on a person's taste, opinion, and biased views.
Morally objectivity is when something is based on reality, something that's actually taking place, physical, and non biased.
Example: A person robbed a man of his money but according to that weird imaginary country its ok.
Problem 2: The country is totally subjective on this view. I don't have to agree with the person in order for him to be robbed if its actually happening. The experience may be subjective though.
Being robbed causes pain and discomfort and other things. These emotions can be measured and are detectable therefore it isn't subjective. The person robbing however should be punished regardless of what the person experienced or felt.
A person using drugs may feel good and he/she may perceive it as good but what its doing is important rather than the person's opinions on it. Drugs do cause harm therefore its not morally right.
Being robbed causes pain and discomfort and other things. These emotions can be measured and are detectable therefore it isn't subjective. The person robbing however should be punished regardless of what the person experienced or felt.
I disagree. Let's say, you where in some kind of very poor world. Your child is dying of hunger and you are pretty hungry too. You see a merchant with lots of bread. You don't have enough money because the prices of that merchant is very high. You go up to him and you beg to give food for the money you have. The merchant says "no". So you decide to steal one of his breads when he wasn't looking. Now was wrong for him to steal that food? Who knows. Some people could say yes and some others could say no. In the merchant's eyes, it was wrong, because the poor fellow didn't pay for the food. While on the other side, the guy that wanted the bread for his child thought it was the right thing to do.
Just the fact that I disagree with you proves even more that nothing is objective.
The person robbing however should be punished regardless of what the person experienced or felt.
And why is your opinion law? Why would anyone's opinion be law? And you even said "should". It doesn't mean he will. In that weird world (let's say some post-apocalyptic world). He wouldn't get punished because society finds stealing okay. Back in the old days, slavery was just fine, but now it changed. If this was objective, why did our opin- ooops I mean "laws" change? Because our minds change, and what makes our minds change? Opinions. And how are laws formed? Through opinions. And what are opinions? They are subjective.
Stealing is wrong. Why? Because stealing can cause discomfort, pain, unwanted feelings, and they're being forced to have something taken away from them.
If you steal from him, you will save 3 lives. Will you still refrain from stealing because it's "wrong"? And what if, to someone, pain to a certain someone would make him happy, would that mean that the guy that is robing thinks it's still wrong to steal? No. He thinks it's right, and you think it's wrong. Again, subjective.
Morally objectivity is when something is based on reality, something that's actually taking place, physical, and non biased.
"thou shall not lie."
"but what if someone has to lie to save his life?"
"I said, thou shall not lie!! And thou will burn in hell for doing so."
Morally Subjective is when an idea or thought is totally based on a person's taste, opinion, and biased views.
Did you know that if you punish the the robber, you are creating "ain and discomfort and other things." to the robber. There we go, you just proved that morality is subjective.
By saying that something is objective, you are basically saying that you are smarter then everyone thus, everyone should live through my standards or my leader's standards.
I disagree. Let's say, you where in some kind of very poor world. Your child is dying of hunger and you are pretty hungry too. You see a merchant with lots of bread. You don't have enough money because the prices of that merchant is very high. You go up to him and you beg to give food for the money you have. The merchant says "no". So you decide to steal one of his breads when he wasn't looking. Now was wrong for him to steal that food? Who knows. Some people could say yes and some others could say no. In the merchant's eyes, it was wrong, because the poor fellow didn't pay for the food. While on the other side, the guy that wanted the bread for his child thought it was the right thing to do.
Just the fact that I disagree with you proves even more that nothing is objective.
Either way it is still stealing. What condition the person is in does not matter because the action he has taken is not justifiable because he has taken what is not his. Point being you took something that doesn't belong to you. Its a morally wrong deed anywhere in the world.
And why is your opinion law? Why would anyone's opinion be law? And you even said "should". It doesn't mean he will. In that weird world (let's say some post-apocalyptic world). He wouldn't get punished because society finds stealing okay. Back in the old days, slavery was just fine, but now it changed. If this was objective, why did our opin- ooops I mean "laws" change? Because our minds change, and what makes our minds change? Opinions. And how are laws formed? Through opinions. And what are opinions? They are subjective.
In a post apocalyptic world it wouldn't matter. Why? Because no one is around to enforce the rules. Its still wrong to steal. Again? Why is it wrong? Why is it wrong to steal? Because you did not do any labor to get the property nor did they agree to let you have it and it doesn't rightfully belong to you. If you rob someone then you are stealing from a person who has worked hard for it. If that person does not like being robbed then he will react in a way that might be destructive or in a way that is violent. It will depend on the situation. If a person is murdered its morally wrong. let me explain. If the person is asking for his life to be taken away because of the pain he is in ( its temporary and he is not in the right frame of mind ) and that person does it its still wrong because you don't know if at the last minute he changed his mind or if he was suffering from depression. What's objective is that the person actually took his life away and that person was ill so what he was saying at that moment might not be what he might've wanted later on.
"thou shall not lie."
"but what if someone has to lie to save his life?"
"I said, thou shall not lie!! And thou will burn in hell for doing so."
Lying can be both a subjective and objective problem. Its just so commonly done that most people don't do anything about it. In court, however, it is taken differently because it could mean the life, death, and punishment of a person. In society its not as big because it does not concern with punishment given by the court and its much smaller on a scale. Obviously, The court is not going to punish someone for cheating or punish a kid for lying about a cookie he stole from a cookie jar from his parents. Its wrong nevertheless.
Did you know that if you punish the the robber, you are creating "ain and discomfort and other things." to the robber. There we go, you just proved that morality is subjective.
Judges base punishment on the quantity and seriousness of a crime. I'm not sure how they justify the crime and punishment ( Probably books or teachers tell them how to in law school ). Anyhow, some things must be subjective and some not depending on the situation. This an opinionated answer by the way. If anyone does not punish criminals then they don't fear and they're free to do whatever.
I will say a radical ideal that you need to think about for a moment:
I think that to achieve perfection is to be flawed.
What I mean by that is that you achieve the highest level according to one standard, and thus your progression and willingness to adapt stops. When a new standard comes along, it is difficult to move on to that new level/requirement.
With that said, a perfect place cannot be achieved because: 1. what I said above, and 2. human nature is going to get in the way. someone somewhere is going to get greedy/annoyed/different/picked on/etc which will undue the "erfect state" in the long run
You are saying that discomfort and pain is bad no matter what, thus everything that can cause discomfort is bad. Okay, three problems:
1. Causing pain and discomfort is in human nature, thus you are going against the nature of your own specie, aka that rule can not be objective. 2. What about animals? Do they not count too? Or is this "rule" subjective? 3. Who makes those rules? Society. So outside of society, those rules wouldn't have to apply. Not objective.
I'm not saying that hurting people is good, I'm just saying that there is no universal rule about this that covers every single human and/or specie in the universe.
If you rob someone then you are stealing from a person who has worked hard for it.
Robbing can be somewhat of a labor, but how to you know that the person you robbed from worked hard for it?
Its still wrong to steal. Again? Why is it wrong? Why is it wrong to steal?
If the majority thinks that stealing is good, the stealing would be good. Same thing with slavery, cannibalism and other stuff.
There was a perfect place and ther is a perfect place 1) the garden of eden was perfect until the fall 2) Heaven was perfect, is perfect and always will be.
Well... I'm guessing that you could call a vacuum a perfect place- it has (theoretically) nothing in it, so it could be called perfect. Either that, or there's a place where there is no sin, crimes, etc. That's either A. A Vacuum, or B. Heaven, or C. Eden.
