4 ms·

I'm not really interested in expanding directly, but if you're curious, answering that question is an entire field of study called ethics. https://en.wikipedia

• chillacy 8y ago
  My understanding is that for the study of ethics, morality is absolute in that there is an absolute answer, even if we don't know what that answer is. If there were no absolute answer, then ethics as a field can't exist. But that seems a bit tautological to me. Moral absolutism stood on more solid ground at a time when the world was smaller and more religious.
• dorgo 8y ago
  Thank you. Seems like you associate objectivity with popularity. Like in if all/most people consider something good/evil then it is objectively good/evil. I wasn't aware of this view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil "... and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans."
• sireat 8y ago
  This is a dicy ground to enter. As Voltaire said about God, same goes for absolute morals. They ought to exist because without absolutes society is liable to collapse. That does not mean that absolute morals exist just that we sort of pretend they do. Take any human behaviour and you will find pros and cons in the good/evil category. Liqueur/weed laws, sexuality laws, voting laws, slavery laws, etc etc etc. Extreme example. Bio-hackers release a virus which manages to kill the whole of humanity on Earth including themselves. Evil/bad absolutely? Certainly bad for humanity if there are humans left on other planets. But otherwise the question is meaningless to humans. All morals are localized to time/space.