But how is it objective if we cannot agree on it?
This is what objective means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective&db=*
So if we know the facts of a certain event in history, how do we determine if the event was moral without being "influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice"?
This is what objective means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective&db=*
So if we know the facts of a certain event in history, how do we determine if the event was moral without being "influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice"?
Consider my 'torturing a new-born baby for pleasure' as an example. To do such a thing is wrong, we do not need personal feelings or interpretations to conclude this, it is quite 'simply' wrong to torture a new born baby no matter how you look at it. Hence, objectively wrong. Just as how it is objectively wrong to kill millions of Jews, just how it is objectively wrong to degrade people because of the color of their skin.
In all these examples personal feelings, interpretations, and prejudice are especially irrelevant. It does matter how I feel about racism, it is downright and plain wrong, I can't put it much simpler than that.
Buy on AliExpress.com