The reality is that morality is very subjective, every living being has it's own ethical rules. There's no such thing as common morality. Various communities, whether organized in small societies, religious groups, countries, try to indroduce more formal morality codes - not always in line with everyone's beliefs.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Everyone recognizes what's good and what's bad. Just everyone's definition of bad and good is different. Sometimes only slightly different and sometimes hugely different.
I don't believe in 'moral objectivism' at all . Also recognition doesn't negate interpretation and vice versa. Our receptors may receive the exact same signals, but interpret them differently based on many, many factors, like our past experience, knowledge, instincts, genetics, current hormones level, diet, mood, beliefs, environment, influecne and many more. Animals recognize what's good for them, same do people. I understand 'moral objectivism' as some general code which defines what's good and what's bad, like that killing is bad and feeding the hungry is good, and if so then this code doesn't apply to all living beings and therefore it's a failed theory.
You can say so. No living being is able to recognize things as they really are, we only see the very limited spectrum of things, many signals received by millions of faulty receptors which are sent with whole lot of data loss to our brains which then mix and match these scrapage pieces of data and throw out some kind of reasoning back to our consciousness layer.