We decide who is being more immoral. We consider what a perfect country should be acting in such a stituation, when this country, say Israel, does not act accordingly to the most suitable manner(promoting peace between the two nations) then we may say that Israel are acting immorally.
Since: We are always looking from our subjective eyes
Therefore: Objective judgment is impossible
Question: How do we come to know this objective law?
Answer: Subjectively.
Question: How can we know any objective truth objectively then?
Answer: We can't, but the best we have is when there is unanimous agreement.
Question: Is there a unanimous agreement that the objective moral law exists?
Answer: Hell no
My subjective conclusion: You have a subjective faith in the existence of an allegedly objective law.
My view of Morality: An action is deemed moral or immoral relatively to the situations and back grounds of the people involved as well as the people judging.
Ex: Killing.
- Muslims: Killing while defending the name of God is morally more than a Good action.
- Murder: Killing the innocent is seen as a wrong action.
- Court: Executing a Murderer is a good deed, helping him escape is a bad one.
- Muslim Sharia Law: Killing apostates is a neutral action(Recently changed by a new Fatwa under the pretense that it used to be the right action back then but not anymore, its detailed but i can spill it out).
- Court: Killing in self defense is not an bad action
- Ancient Arabia: Killing as a Revenge is a good action.
See? its all the same action of killing a human being but the situation differs and the time differs. Further, as time goes by we are changing our moral codes, adding and editing it. The world as well as the human beings are changing. You cannot apply the same rules for cave men as well as noble prize winners.
Don't argue in specific examples.. argue about concepts
Buy on AliExpress.com