Please use proper quotes instead of bold/unbold, it makes your
post easier to read to others.
when you refer to the existence of a wall, you are describing a
fact. when you say that the wall is clean or dirty, you are
expressing an opinion. what is clean to you may be dirty to me and
vice versa.
Incorrect, the wall can indeed be absolutely clean or dirty. If
the concept of clean and dirty were completely subjective, then
people would have nothing to argue about at all.
As it turns out to have an argument about clean or dirty both
parties must have accepted that there was an absolute yardstick of
clean and dirty that ought to be debated over in the first place.
And that one man's opinion is indeed better then the other.
Indeed this applies to all arguments on things subjective, that
they reveal a belief in the absolute that binds all.
but the morality that binds us is different from the morality
that binds the al kaeda. if their morality differs from ours, how
can morality form a basis for the so called absolute?
The morality that binds us is a set of values and rules that we
have derived from what we perceive to be the absolute that all men
have to answer to. The terrorists have also perceived a different
set of rules from the same absolute.
No matter our differences, we both admit an absolute that both
parties have to be under, just that we disagree on who is more
correct in their own system reflecting the absolute.
If we believe that the terrorists are excluded from or morality,
then indeed we have no moral right to judge or capture them at all,
nor would they believe they have the right to bomb us.
the existence of rules governing our lives doesn't imply that
those rules are the absolute truth or right.
I did not say the rules governing our lives are the absolute,
but they are a reflection of a belief in the absolute.
in other words conviction is what really matters because right
or wrong is subjective and depends on other people's judgement. and
we really shouldn't live our lives based on what other people
thinks of us as long as we conscientiously do no harm to
others.
Why do no harm to others? If everything is subjective why should
doing harm to others be excluded?
If we dont care what people think of us and what we should do, and
there is no right or wrong. Doing harm to others is not more
inherently evil or good then anything else.
Save 1000 children or kill them, it makes no difference. There is
no good or evil. What matters is what you have convinced yourself
to believe and have the power to carry out. If indeed I derive
pleasure from robbing and killing others, and believe it is a good
thing, as well as having the means to carry it out without getting
caught. I can toss all notions of right and wrong and what others
think of my actions by the very virtue that I can.
when you pass judgement on fairness, you are making a subjective
judgement about an issue. this should not be confused with the
description of objects or events which should not contain any
opinion.
hence, you cannot be more correct or more fair unless the person
passing judgement abt you happens to agree with you.
Just because a judgement is subjective does not mean it is
incorrect or invalid by the mere virtue of it coming from an
observer. What matters is how close this subjective argument is to
the absolute.
If you and I were in a plane at 20,000 feet and we both make
observations on our height. You guess 15,000 and I guess 3,000 and
argue about it
while both our observations are based on our
subjective experience we have both admitted that a true height
(20,000) exists, and that one of us are closer to that truth
which
is in that case, you.