Posts
Challenges
Portals
Authors
Books
beta
Sign Up
Challenge
Does Objective Morality Exist?...
Friedrich Nietzsche called them humanity’s “herd instinct.” John Stuart Mill stated that they are the proportion to which an action leads to human happiness. Socrates believed that a “moral” individual would not harm an “immoral” individual. Philosophers (and scientists) have long debated the essence of morality, and different cultures have all at various times and even today possess differing ideas of what is morally acceptable. But one question above all else rings clear: do morals actually exist apart from our subjective human world, in the objective realm? To be clear, morals and ethics are something urgently required by society to function properly and to ensure human happiness and trust. For truly, a wold without morals would be a world of chaos and misfortune, presumably. With that established, however, do morals actually exist objectively? If so, who or what sets the rules and what are they? If not, why not? I invite the artists and philosophers of Prose. to take up the challenge, and am eager to read your takes on this. All philosophical and religious views are welcome.

Torturing Babies for Fun?

Can I torture an innocent baby for fun? Why not, if it makes me feel better? Here most readers would place their morals above my personal liberties, I would hope.

But how about if I wanted to torture a terrorist to extract information in an effort to possibly save 10 innocent children’s lives? That would get trickier, wouldn’t it? Do we sacrifice the one bad life for the many?

How about if I wanted to torture the man who murdered my daughter? Why wouldn’t that be fair? How about if the man who murdered my daughter was a doctor, and my daughter was unborn? Ah! Now we are into the tall weeds.

Do governments exist to protect moralities? Why else are laws established?

Should guns be outlawed, even though our Constitution gives us the right to have them?

More people die from illegal drugs every year than from legal guns, so how would making guns illegal help stop shootings? It is already against the law to shoot someone, so if that is already illegal, then why is it also necessary to outlaw guns? Outlaws will still be outlaws, won’t they? Shouldn’t we be able to arm ourselves against those people who have questionable morals? Especially if those people reside within our government?

Alcohol also kills more people than guns do. Do we outlaw that as well? Didn’t work the first time! And cigarettes?

How about sugary drinks? They also kill more people annually than guns do (in the US). Does the govt. have an obligation to save people who are living self-destructive life styles? Particularly children? Is allowing a naive, innocent child to become obese and develop diabetes before it can make wise decisions for itself not some form of torture? Making a child suffer because it is easier to say yes than no? If so, then why are their parents not held accountable for torturing innocent babies, as I would be?

Hmmm... accountability? How is me telling you how to act moral? Or vice-versa?

Morals... sheesh! Too wishy-washy. I don’t need ’em. What say you?

12
3
13