If what we think is good enough, then what the person who believes war is more moral than peace’s thoughts are also good enough. Yet that creates a logical contradiction: Peace is more moral because you believe it, but war is more moral because Fred believes it. Who decides, and why?
Rabbitball
Karma: −1
Morality is Objective
If morality is subjective, there is nothing that promotes love over hate, peace over war, etc. apart from what we think. And so someone who thinks war is moral IS CORRECT under subjective morality, while another person who things the same war is immoral IS ALSO CORRECT.
Alex: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
Sam: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
I am not talking about those statements. I am speaking of this scenario:
Alex: “War with thhis nation at this time is better than peace according to my standards.”
Sam: “Peace with this nation at this time is better than war according to my standards.”
You are right in saying that they aren’t contradictory. Instead they lead to incoherence which can lead to contradictory standards for the government that wants to decide. Again who decides? Is is moral to decide policy by focus group?