Your statements regarding 'morality' are an assumption of supremacy of thought. What makes you think your idea of what is moral for you, is shared with anyone else, and even that it is appropriate for another. Each of us have our own inner moral values that have been developed over our life times, and are subject to evolving as experiences teach us new parameters and possibilities. You make an assumption that it is 'immoral' to commit suicide. Who says???? The church, your mother, some other influence. How can you know the heart of another, the circumstance of another and consider yourself to know better then they what is right action for them? I find assumptions of moral superiority disturbing and dangerous to others. Take witch burnings for example. 3 million women were murdered over the course of a couple hundred years because they were mid-wives, healers, beautiful, ugly, distrusted and others general insecurity, fear and hate. All that killing at the time was considered moral by the community at large.
There is much danger in assumptions of superiority of moral values in a diverse and evolving society.
oc
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You're making common mistake to conflate people's personal moral beliefs with the morality of interactions, with is universally dependent on whether consent has been given or withheld. It's not a matter of what I think, It's nature. When you violate somebody's non-consent, you violate their self-ownership and it leaves them feeling discontent. That is why rape is universally wrong, or, immoral. It doesn't matter you think rape is morally okay while you violate the non-consent of another, you are still, in actuality, infringing on somebody's self-ownership.
Nature says.
An action can not be objectively Immoral unless it violates somebody's non-consent, self-ownership, and or their property rights.
Consensus doesn't determine the morality of an action and or interaction; consent or withheld consent does.