bostonwine on Nostr: I wouldn’t say that there’s no objective morality. (In fact, I personally believe ...
I wouldn’t say that there’s no objective morality. (In fact, I personally believe that there is a right and wrong in most situations, but this isn’t a debate on meta-ethics 😉)
I do believe that most peoples’ moral compass, while usually aligned, aren’t always in sync. More importantly, I don’t think that morality, with the unfathomable situation-dependent complexity of moral actions, should be the sole basis of lawmaking, because laws are effectively one-size-fits-all, and morality is far more nuanced, often beyond the capability of a bureaucratic system to handle.
So while I may hold myself (or others) to a high standard of moral expectation, I believe our legal system should allow people to behave in ways that are considered by some to be immoral. (Again, very situationally dependent, so this would be “permissible” in many ways and “wrong” in many others).
I do believe that most peoples’ moral compass, while usually aligned, aren’t always in sync. More importantly, I don’t think that morality, with the unfathomable situation-dependent complexity of moral actions, should be the sole basis of lawmaking, because laws are effectively one-size-fits-all, and morality is far more nuanced, often beyond the capability of a bureaucratic system to handle.
So while I may hold myself (or others) to a high standard of moral expectation, I believe our legal system should allow people to behave in ways that are considered by some to be immoral. (Again, very situationally dependent, so this would be “permissible” in many ways and “wrong” in many others).