Now, very commonly, debates on this forum dip into the ocean of morality. One may claim that one thing is immoral, or the other may claim it's very moral, or this and that.
Let me put it simply: morality does not exist at all. Not even in the slightest. It is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as right or wrong or good or evil. It's entirely subjective. A saint might be evil and a rapist might be the kindest man in the world, if I were to view it that way.
Of course, I don't. My morality is likely like most peoples', but ultimately, it's entirely subjective. So there is no right and wrong.
Even if one said "there is no morality but so long as you don't hurt others you can be free to do as you please", that in itself is a morality. You are saying that hurting others is immoral.
Now, of course, I think it is, but it's still subjective.
But if we don't have an established morality that we all agree upon, society falls apart. Law becomes moot. After all, how can we prosecute murderers if they're doing the right thing (according to them)?
That is why it's essential that we have a greater, social morality, and some people (especially liberals), don't understand this. Morality does exist, and it's the one that still exists that has existed for ages. We need it, we can't make it entirely individual otherwise everything is acceptable.
Therefore, we need a greater social morality. And sometimes, compromises need to be made. Yes, sometimes it's upsetting, but it's necessary. We need some sort of regulation, in order to maintain the social function of society. Society is society, it's not economy.
Let me put it simply: morality does not exist at all. Not even in the slightest. It is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as right or wrong or good or evil. It's entirely subjective. A saint might be evil and a rapist might be the kindest man in the world, if I were to view it that way.
Of course, I don't. My morality is likely like most peoples', but ultimately, it's entirely subjective. So there is no right and wrong.
Even if one said "there is no morality but so long as you don't hurt others you can be free to do as you please", that in itself is a morality. You are saying that hurting others is immoral.
Now, of course, I think it is, but it's still subjective.
But if we don't have an established morality that we all agree upon, society falls apart. Law becomes moot. After all, how can we prosecute murderers if they're doing the right thing (according to them)?
That is why it's essential that we have a greater, social morality, and some people (especially liberals), don't understand this. Morality does exist, and it's the one that still exists that has existed for ages. We need it, we can't make it entirely individual otherwise everything is acceptable.
Therefore, we need a greater social morality. And sometimes, compromises need to be made. Yes, sometimes it's upsetting, but it's necessary. We need some sort of regulation, in order to maintain the social function of society. Society is society, it's not economy.