u/WrongVerb4Real

(The flair is to highlight the fact that I am talking out of my ass here.)

I've quit thinking of moral frameworks as either objective or subjective. This happened when I realized moral frameworks are imposed. The difference is the source of the framework, and in what the framework is rooted.

For many, like Christians, the imposition is through a religious tradition, rooted in a god-concept. For others, the imposition is secular, rooted in the state. And still others, the imposition is natural, rooted in human empathy. There are probably more that I don't know about.

We might call these subjective or relative, but that's as inaccurate as calling them objective.

I guess the next question is, how do you judge which is best? For now, I'll leave that to the philosophical thinkers, as I've just started thinking about morality this way. Maybe I'll find a method for judging one over another. Or maybe they're all equal. Or maybe it's turtles all the way down.

I can't get enough of this film. First time I watched it was about 15 years ago. Caught the last half of it and I was riveted. Watched it all the way through, and I've revisited it a bunch since. This time I'm paying attention to Peter Lorre's performance as a "cut rate" parasite. Just a small part, but do good.

My favorite part, though, is dueling songs. Germans start up, then Lazlo rouses the crowd to a rendition of La Marsellie (sp?). Just knowing the extras singing in that scene are mostly French refugees at a time when the outcome of WWII was very much in question, the intensity of feeling is very palpable. One of the greatest scene in film history, IMO.

I've been thinking lately about the claim by theists, and especially Christians, that they follow an objective morality. It occurred to me that what they're talking about isn't actuality objective. Rather, they're making a claim to what I would call, "agentic imposed morality." This doesn't equate to true objectivity, though. And in discussions with believers, we shouldn't allow them to push back with claims to objective morality, instead pushing back ourselves by pointing out that the morality they're describing would be one imposed by their god.

Further, we can't allow them to claim that we hold to a subjective morality. (Implying without justification that objective is superior to subjective -- but that's another discussion.) Rather, what we hold to is better described as a "derived" morality, received through socialization, empathy, and observation.

Thoughts?