syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:35 pm
Morality is subjective so let me explain according to my subjective understanding of morality.
Not quite. Individual morals may be subjective, but morality on the whole is an outcome of human biology, which has dictates that are not subjective. For example, you can't tell someone that breathing is not moral and they should stop.
syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:35 pm
People who exploit, oppress, or marginalize others are immoral.
You are trying to make an absolute out of something that you just said is subjective and, therefore, conditional (i.e., true under certain conditions). The corollary is this: it is perfectly fine to kill, exploit, oppress, or marginalize others under certain circumstances. We all know this is true, there's no point arguing about it. If someone attacks you, it's alright to kill them. If someone wants to harm your child, it's okay to oppress them and thwart their will.
That's why traditional morality works: it's conditional, but it flows from human biology. It's also why the type of moral relativism you lead your post with doesn't work: it posits absolutes on a foundation that is distinctly conditional.
Violence, exploitation, oppression, marginalization etc. have no moral assignment. They are good or bad depending on how they are applied, as any third grader knows. It's only when people are "educated" into stupidity and self doubt that they start prattling on about violence being "not okay".
syaigh wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:35 pmPeople who claim that the people who try to help the exploited, oppressed, and marginalized are immoral are, in fact, immoral.
This is where the rubber meets the road, as it were. You absolutely can and must call these very people immoral if they are. Abortionists claim to help people but kill babies. Communists claim to liberate people but practice mass incarceration and murder.
Ideology, and the sophistry that wields it, is poison. Our only allegiance should be to the truth, which is not in any way subjective.
