The idea of objective morality scares me more than the idea of subjective morality, for the same reason that objective patriotism scares me more than subjective patriotism.
I can't say for sure that there is no objective morality, but I can say for certain that no one knows what it is. Morality would appear to be fluid. It ebbs and flows. It evolves over time, all the while people profess to know what it is.
It subjectively seems to me that in order to be moral, one must harbour feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent.
Rape, murder and slavery are immoral because by definition they lack consent. Anyone who carries out these acts lacks empathy, and they intend to hurt the victim.
Only someone who claims to know what is objectively moral could claim that murder, slavery and genocide are at times (when God orders it) acceptable.
Can anyone think of an immoral act that could be done with empathy, consent and without the intent to hurt?
Objective Morality Scares me!!
Moderator: Moderators
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #21
Which is why I detest so many of the professional apologists. They're really in it for the money, let's be honest, they make a mint selling books to the credulous and raking in speaking fees, I don't know that any of these people are more than professional liars. However, I've seen people who seemed absolutely serious in their claims that they'd go kill people if not for God telling them otherwise. I think that religion ends up being a catch basin for people who have serious psychological issues. Not a majority by any means but people who tend to believe in the irrational and woo, like conspiracy theorists, do also tend to fall for religion in a big way.wiploc wrote:I assume they're lying. They aren't really moral cretins; they just pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to get people to take moral guidance from them.Cephus wrote: No but there are an awful lot of Christians who say that if it wasn't for their belief in God, they'd be out raping and murdering. They claim that God is the only thing that keeps them moral. That makes these people sociopaths and I think there are a lot of them out there, held in check only by their beliefs in an imaginary man in the sky.
William Lane Craig is one such. He says that, aside from the fact that it is forbidden by god, he doesn't know of any reason not to do rape.
Want to hear more? Check out my blog!
Watch my YouTube channel!
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.
Watch my YouTube channel!
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.
Post #22
I assume WLC is lying; he says stupid things even though he's obviously smart. But I don't assume he's nothing but a liar, or that he's in it only for the money.Cephus wrote:Which is why I detest so many of the professional apologists. They're really in it for the money, let's be honest, they make a mint selling books to the credulous and raking in speaking fees, I don't know that any of these people are more than professional liars.wiploc wrote:I assume they're lying. They aren't really moral cretins; they just pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to get people to take moral guidance from them.Cephus wrote: No but there are an awful lot of Christians who say that if it wasn't for their belief in God, they'd be out raping and murdering. They claim that God is the only thing that keeps them moral. That makes these people sociopaths and I think there are a lot of them out there, held in check only by their beliefs in an imaginary man in the sky.
William Lane Craig is one such. He says that, aside from the fact that it is forbidden by god, he doesn't know of any reason not to do rape.
Dave Barry is not making this up has an essay on UFOs. He makes it pretty clear that true believers are often willing to lie in order to spread what they see as the truth. That is, if you know flying saucers are real, you may fake pictures of them so that other people will know they are real.
WLC could be doing something similar, lying for Jesus in order to spread what he considers to be the truth.
They can be sincere but wrong. They don't have to be held back only by religion in order to believe they are held back only by religion.However, I've seen people who seemed absolutely serious in their claims that they'd go kill people if not for God telling them otherwise.
I remember talking to a deconvert who said something like, "I still want to be good, but I no longer know why." That is, his morality hadn't changed, even though what he'd been told was the basis of his morality was gone.
That means he was wrong about the basis of his morality. It doesn't mean that he should have gone bananas when the pseudo-basis of morality was removed.
Maybe. People with a need to believe something mystical, perhaps.I think that religion ends up being a catch basin for people who have serious psychological issues. Not a majority by any means but people who tend to believe in the irrational and woo, like conspiracy theorists, do also tend to fall for religion in a big way.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #23
[Replying to post 9 by Overcomer]
Rather than responding point by point, and risk repeating others, I'll simple offer my objections as a list:
"Objective" refers to something outside of ANY minds, your definition is simply the ground work for the special pleading along the lines of "God's mind" that can be found through out your post.
Appealing to God would just render morality subjective to God's mind. What's more, God can order genocide as easily as he could order you to love each other. Explaining why God would order genocide doesn't help, that just affirms that God does order such things, and opens a futher can of worm re: omnipotence.
Any act can be justified by avoiding something worse, picking the lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it would be a justifiable thing to do.
What is absolute isn't necessrily objective. A trival example: In my opinion vanilla ice-cream always taste better than bitter gourd. A claim based solely on my opinion, and yet an absolute claim.
There is nothing in subjectivism that says all opinion are equal, as such a subjectivist is under no obligation to refrain form moral judgements, or act according to said judgements.
The average Christian may not be well versed in philosophy, but William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias are well educated and have no excuse. They should know better and probably DO know better.
The government does not have guidelines on how to kill properly, does not have best pratice for stealing, nor etiquette for breaking traffic violations. No, the government does not regulate murder, thievery or traffic violations. They are forbidden instead, on the pain of punishment. The Bible on the other hand have guidelines on how to beat your slaves.
"Thus shalt not treat others as properties." How easy was that? Why have rules to regulate it when, as God, you can order exactly what you want? Instead we have Numbers 31:18. To regulate is to condone it, to order it, far worse.
Rather than responding point by point, and risk repeating others, I'll simple offer my objections as a list:
"Objective" refers to something outside of ANY minds, your definition is simply the ground work for the special pleading along the lines of "God's mind" that can be found through out your post.
Appealing to God would just render morality subjective to God's mind. What's more, God can order genocide as easily as he could order you to love each other. Explaining why God would order genocide doesn't help, that just affirms that God does order such things, and opens a futher can of worm re: omnipotence.
Any act can be justified by avoiding something worse, picking the lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it would be a justifiable thing to do.
What is absolute isn't necessrily objective. A trival example: In my opinion vanilla ice-cream always taste better than bitter gourd. A claim based solely on my opinion, and yet an absolute claim.
There is nothing in subjectivism that says all opinion are equal, as such a subjectivist is under no obligation to refrain form moral judgements, or act according to said judgements.
The average Christian may not be well versed in philosophy, but William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias are well educated and have no excuse. They should know better and probably DO know better.
The government does not have guidelines on how to kill properly, does not have best pratice for stealing, nor etiquette for breaking traffic violations. No, the government does not regulate murder, thievery or traffic violations. They are forbidden instead, on the pain of punishment. The Bible on the other hand have guidelines on how to beat your slaves.
"Thus shalt not treat others as properties." How easy was that? Why have rules to regulate it when, as God, you can order exactly what you want? Instead we have Numbers 31:18. To regulate is to condone it, to order it, far worse.
-
Jolly_Penguin
- Apprentice
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:06 pm
Post #24
The post above raises an interesting point.
The bible doesn't give regulations on how to engage in gay sex, knowing people will do it and aiming to minimize its effects. It says gay sex is an abomination.
The bible doesn't give regulations on how to commit adultery, knowing people will do it and aiming to minimize its effects. It says not to commit adultery.
The bible does give regulations on how to beat your slaves. It does not say not to have slaves.
One of these things is not like the others....
The bible doesn't give regulations on how to engage in gay sex, knowing people will do it and aiming to minimize its effects. It says gay sex is an abomination.
The bible doesn't give regulations on how to commit adultery, knowing people will do it and aiming to minimize its effects. It says not to commit adultery.
The bible does give regulations on how to beat your slaves. It does not say not to have slaves.
One of these things is not like the others....
Re: Objective Morality Scares me!!
Post #25[Replying to post 1 by Mr.Badham]
Objective morality scares you more than subjectivism because of where you live. People who live in Florida fear hurricanes more than people who live in Alaska, and Alaskans fear blizzards more than Floridians do.
Subjectivism looks harmless to you because you live beside a soft, hedonistic, version of post-Christian subjectivism. Other kinds are possible.
For example, fascism. Here's Mussolini:
"Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism." —Benito Mussolini, Diuturna (1921)
The entire idea of subjectivism is that there is nothing at all more or less rational than inferring from universal subjectivism that "we ought to tolerate others' beliefs and ways of living" than inferring (as fascism does), "we ought to force our beliefs on everyone we can by any means necessary."
That is not only a possible conclusion, but an actual one. Mussolini drew it, and lived it. As of course did Hitler, who seems to disagree with Mussolini that EVERYONE has the right to create his own morality; Hitler seems to have thought that the great masses needed (the illusions of) objective religion and objective morality, whereas only a few strong and noble souls could rise above this and EARN the right to impose his own vision on the world.
You have the good fortune of living in relatively tolerant, non-fascist, post-Christian society where "everyone (mostly) tries to get along." But there are things that seem to border on historical inevitablities. For example, between the American affirmation of the principle that all men are created equal and free, and the American institution of chattel slavery, it was only a matter of time before something had to give. The two things simply could not coexist indefinitely.
Similarly, in any society which embraces moral subjectivism, there will begin a steady process towards the destruction of all possible moral standards, since in such a society there will no longer be in principle any answer to the question "Why not do this, if I want to?" (Or at least no answer beyond "I don't want you to do it.")
In the modern West, "consent" is still a very important thing. Most of us have an idea that it is wrong to do things to others without their consent. But this is not the way most human beings have felt in the past. There as absolutely no reason to suppose that someone who wields power and is a moral subjectivist would always or usually choose to be compassionate as opposed to using their power to inflict pain and taking joy in their power and cruelty.
The problem with moral subjectivism is not that it is false (which it is), but that it is what the philosopher David Stove called a "paralytic principle." Happily, Google Books has his entire short essay "Paralytic Epistemology" here (but see p. 73 specifically):
http://books.google.com/books?id=aZJIbc ... gy&f=false
I'm a bit at a loss where this terror of objective morality comes from. Why would it make you afraid if it were objectively true that all human beings have a right to live, and that murder is (therefore) always wrong? Or if, say, it were objectively true that every human being is an image of God, and therefore has an inherent value and dignity that must be respected, regardless of anything else?
Most people are afraid of harm or death. You, oddly, seem to be afraid of the protection from harm and death that morality bestows upon you, namely, your natural rights.
ζητειτε,
_Johannes
Objective morality scares you more than subjectivism because of where you live. People who live in Florida fear hurricanes more than people who live in Alaska, and Alaskans fear blizzards more than Floridians do.
Subjectivism looks harmless to you because you live beside a soft, hedonistic, version of post-Christian subjectivism. Other kinds are possible.
For example, fascism. Here's Mussolini:
"Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism." —Benito Mussolini, Diuturna (1921)
The entire idea of subjectivism is that there is nothing at all more or less rational than inferring from universal subjectivism that "we ought to tolerate others' beliefs and ways of living" than inferring (as fascism does), "we ought to force our beliefs on everyone we can by any means necessary."
That is not only a possible conclusion, but an actual one. Mussolini drew it, and lived it. As of course did Hitler, who seems to disagree with Mussolini that EVERYONE has the right to create his own morality; Hitler seems to have thought that the great masses needed (the illusions of) objective religion and objective morality, whereas only a few strong and noble souls could rise above this and EARN the right to impose his own vision on the world.
You have the good fortune of living in relatively tolerant, non-fascist, post-Christian society where "everyone (mostly) tries to get along." But there are things that seem to border on historical inevitablities. For example, between the American affirmation of the principle that all men are created equal and free, and the American institution of chattel slavery, it was only a matter of time before something had to give. The two things simply could not coexist indefinitely.
Similarly, in any society which embraces moral subjectivism, there will begin a steady process towards the destruction of all possible moral standards, since in such a society there will no longer be in principle any answer to the question "Why not do this, if I want to?" (Or at least no answer beyond "I don't want you to do it.")
In the modern West, "consent" is still a very important thing. Most of us have an idea that it is wrong to do things to others without their consent. But this is not the way most human beings have felt in the past. There as absolutely no reason to suppose that someone who wields power and is a moral subjectivist would always or usually choose to be compassionate as opposed to using their power to inflict pain and taking joy in their power and cruelty.
The problem with moral subjectivism is not that it is false (which it is), but that it is what the philosopher David Stove called a "paralytic principle." Happily, Google Books has his entire short essay "Paralytic Epistemology" here (but see p. 73 specifically):
http://books.google.com/books?id=aZJIbc ... gy&f=false
I'm a bit at a loss where this terror of objective morality comes from. Why would it make you afraid if it were objectively true that all human beings have a right to live, and that murder is (therefore) always wrong? Or if, say, it were objectively true that every human being is an image of God, and therefore has an inherent value and dignity that must be respected, regardless of anything else?
Most people are afraid of harm or death. You, oddly, seem to be afraid of the protection from harm and death that morality bestows upon you, namely, your natural rights.
ζητειτε,
_Johannes
Post #26
[Replying to post 24 by Jolly_Penguin]
No, but Christianity does assert the essential unnaturalness and wrongness of slavery. It classifies it among the evils that Christ has definitively overcome.
The early Christians had no expectation that slavery could ever be gotten rid of, anymore than they thought poverty could be gotten rid of. Care for the poor is a sacred duty for Christians, but are you willing to blame them for failing to abolish poverty, something they never tried to do, because they did not think it possible to do?
How are we moderns doing on that whole abolishing poverty thing? Actually, how are we doing with abolishing slavery? "It is technically illegal in all countries today, although still widely practiced, to the tune of around 20-30 million slaves." Oh.
As an interesting matter of fact, the first argument for the essential wrongness of slavery even in this world was made by the church father Gregory of Nyssa, precisely on the basis of his Christian understanding of the human person as an image of God (something so precious that no one could rightfully "own" it). That's a bit farther than Aristotle went in recommending we only enslave those who are already "natural slaves" or Plato's even milder suggestion that at least Greeks should not enslave Greeks.
It can't not affect how one views slavery, if one also thinks it is true that the transcendent God came into the world "in the form of a slave."
ζητειτε,
_Johannes
No, but Christianity does assert the essential unnaturalness and wrongness of slavery. It classifies it among the evils that Christ has definitively overcome.
The early Christians had no expectation that slavery could ever be gotten rid of, anymore than they thought poverty could be gotten rid of. Care for the poor is a sacred duty for Christians, but are you willing to blame them for failing to abolish poverty, something they never tried to do, because they did not think it possible to do?
How are we moderns doing on that whole abolishing poverty thing? Actually, how are we doing with abolishing slavery? "It is technically illegal in all countries today, although still widely practiced, to the tune of around 20-30 million slaves." Oh.
As an interesting matter of fact, the first argument for the essential wrongness of slavery even in this world was made by the church father Gregory of Nyssa, precisely on the basis of his Christian understanding of the human person as an image of God (something so precious that no one could rightfully "own" it). That's a bit farther than Aristotle went in recommending we only enslave those who are already "natural slaves" or Plato's even milder suggestion that at least Greeks should not enslave Greeks.
It can't not affect how one views slavery, if one also thinks it is true that the transcendent God came into the world "in the form of a slave."
ζητειτε,
_Johannes
-
Jolly_Penguin
- Apprentice
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:06 pm
Post #27
We are not Gods. We do not claim to be flawless or all powerful. And yet we DO enact laws against slavery. We say absolutely not to do it. God, who is claimed to be flawless and all powerful, apparently didn't see fit to do that for the Bible. Instead the bible gives instructions on how to do it properly.
Post #28
[Replying to post 27 by Jolly_Penguin]
We own lots of animals, which are useful for a variety of purposes. Obviously, owning a rational animal, a human being (or many) could be much more useful, since such a tool could think for itself. That is, after all, Aristotle's definition of a slave: an animate tool.
We moderns do indeed pass laws against slavery, and forbid it absolutely. But why? Why should there be an absolute prohibition against something so clearly useful?
I can't think of any good reason other than an understanding of the human that is fundamentally Christian, either directly so, or as an inertially held post-Christian belief.
Do you suppose it is an accident that the most far-seeing and thoughtful anti-Christian, Nietzsche, also proclaimed the necessity and goodness of slavery? Or that he characterized Christianity as the epitome of "slave morality"? The Christian idea of DENYING any real difference between Masters and slaves was one of the things he found most repugnant.
And not to disdain the obvious, the great majority of the leaders of the modern abolitionist movement in Europe, England, and America, were Christians acting on explicitly Christian grounds. Those laws prohibiting slavery you are so proud of are largely the work of Christian reformers.
Of course, many Christians were complicit in the institution of slavery, but no one in his right mind claims that Christians have some special power to be perfect or transcend the limitations of their time.
You don't get to claim moral credit for the age in which you live. You didn't abolish slavery. Similarly, you don't get to throw moral blame indiscriminately at those in other ages, for failing to do something that had never entered their minds as a possibility.
Slavery was regarded by the early Christians as a natural evil, something that could not be got rid of in a fallen world, but that which had been annulled in any ultimate sense by Christ. There are no slaves in Christ, nor in the kingdom of God, nor the life to come.
As I mentioned in my last post, it was the Christian Father, Gregory of Nyssa, who was the first person ever to argue for the universal abolition of slavery -- on what were of course explicitly Christian grounds.
And as I mentioned in my last post, all countries in the world officially have laws against slavery. This is good. And yet slavery persists in the modern world. Why is that?
Poverty persists in the modern world. Why is that?
Inequality persists in the modern world. Why is that?
Injustice persists in the modern world. Why is that?
One non-insane explanation is that human nature is such that these things are (in practice) ineradicable. The best we can do is to 1. recognize the wrongness of them, and 2. do whatever we can to ameliorate them. In think poverty is the most instructive comparison, since like slavery, it is a social evil. It is as true to say "The Bible does not pronounce an absolute prohibition against poverty; it only tells one how to deal properly with the poor" as it is to say "The Bible does not pronounce an absolute prohibition against slavery; it only tells one how to deal properly with slaves": in the case of the poor, the answer is "with love and charity"; in the case of slaves, it is "with love and justice."
Not to mention the fact that comparing 17th-19th century European slavery with the ancient Greek and Roman practices of douleia or servitium is a bit like comparing modern homosexuality with ancient Greek paiderastia, or modern religious pluralism with ancient polytheism. Though clearly related things, they are very different social institutions. The fact that we use the same word for them no more makes them the same thing than the fact that Marxists use the term "wage slavery" for employment, makes employment the same thing as "slavery."
ζητειτε,
_Johannes
We own lots of animals, which are useful for a variety of purposes. Obviously, owning a rational animal, a human being (or many) could be much more useful, since such a tool could think for itself. That is, after all, Aristotle's definition of a slave: an animate tool.
We moderns do indeed pass laws against slavery, and forbid it absolutely. But why? Why should there be an absolute prohibition against something so clearly useful?
I can't think of any good reason other than an understanding of the human that is fundamentally Christian, either directly so, or as an inertially held post-Christian belief.
Do you suppose it is an accident that the most far-seeing and thoughtful anti-Christian, Nietzsche, also proclaimed the necessity and goodness of slavery? Or that he characterized Christianity as the epitome of "slave morality"? The Christian idea of DENYING any real difference between Masters and slaves was one of the things he found most repugnant.
And not to disdain the obvious, the great majority of the leaders of the modern abolitionist movement in Europe, England, and America, were Christians acting on explicitly Christian grounds. Those laws prohibiting slavery you are so proud of are largely the work of Christian reformers.
Of course, many Christians were complicit in the institution of slavery, but no one in his right mind claims that Christians have some special power to be perfect or transcend the limitations of their time.
You don't get to claim moral credit for the age in which you live. You didn't abolish slavery. Similarly, you don't get to throw moral blame indiscriminately at those in other ages, for failing to do something that had never entered their minds as a possibility.
Slavery was regarded by the early Christians as a natural evil, something that could not be got rid of in a fallen world, but that which had been annulled in any ultimate sense by Christ. There are no slaves in Christ, nor in the kingdom of God, nor the life to come.
As I mentioned in my last post, it was the Christian Father, Gregory of Nyssa, who was the first person ever to argue for the universal abolition of slavery -- on what were of course explicitly Christian grounds.
And as I mentioned in my last post, all countries in the world officially have laws against slavery. This is good. And yet slavery persists in the modern world. Why is that?
Poverty persists in the modern world. Why is that?
Inequality persists in the modern world. Why is that?
Injustice persists in the modern world. Why is that?
One non-insane explanation is that human nature is such that these things are (in practice) ineradicable. The best we can do is to 1. recognize the wrongness of them, and 2. do whatever we can to ameliorate them. In think poverty is the most instructive comparison, since like slavery, it is a social evil. It is as true to say "The Bible does not pronounce an absolute prohibition against poverty; it only tells one how to deal properly with the poor" as it is to say "The Bible does not pronounce an absolute prohibition against slavery; it only tells one how to deal properly with slaves": in the case of the poor, the answer is "with love and charity"; in the case of slaves, it is "with love and justice."
Not to mention the fact that comparing 17th-19th century European slavery with the ancient Greek and Roman practices of douleia or servitium is a bit like comparing modern homosexuality with ancient Greek paiderastia, or modern religious pluralism with ancient polytheism. Though clearly related things, they are very different social institutions. The fact that we use the same word for them no more makes them the same thing than the fact that Marxists use the term "wage slavery" for employment, makes employment the same thing as "slavery."
ζητειτε,
_Johannes
Re: Objective Morality Scares me!!
Post #29[Replying to Johannes]
You're right, I do live in a very soft, hedonistic version of post-Christian subjectivism. I believe with all my heart my community is that way because we are subjective. We decide for ourselves what's right for us. We don't listen to people like Mussolini or Hitler.
Soft and Hedonistic are what happens to people when they think for themselves. Take their lives into their own hands, and live how they please. Soft and hedonistic is a nice way to live, and I consider myself lucky to have the opportunity to spend my life this way.
Was Nazi Germany soft and hedonistic? Is the Sudan soft and hedonistic? Are either of these two places preferable to the place I live?
Anytime someone tells me their fear is fascism, I can't help but think they actually fear homosexuality.
The question I ask myself is this; Did Hitler believe he was behaving morally, or did he realize that what he was doing was immoral? If I could prove to you that Hitler knew he was behaving immorally, would you embrace subjective morality?
You're right, I do live in a very soft, hedonistic version of post-Christian subjectivism. I believe with all my heart my community is that way because we are subjective. We decide for ourselves what's right for us. We don't listen to people like Mussolini or Hitler.
Soft and Hedonistic are what happens to people when they think for themselves. Take their lives into their own hands, and live how they please. Soft and hedonistic is a nice way to live, and I consider myself lucky to have the opportunity to spend my life this way.
Was Nazi Germany soft and hedonistic? Is the Sudan soft and hedonistic? Are either of these two places preferable to the place I live?
Anytime someone tells me their fear is fascism, I can't help but think they actually fear homosexuality.
The question I ask myself is this; Did Hitler believe he was behaving morally, or did he realize that what he was doing was immoral? If I could prove to you that Hitler knew he was behaving immorally, would you embrace subjective morality?
Re: Objective Morality Scares me!!
Post #30Consent, empathy and the intent to do no harm are equal. No one of these three is more important than the other. They create a triangle. A triangle of morality. Without one, the triangle falls apart.bluethread wrote:First you present a subjective morality based on feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent. You then present consent as the determinant factor in rape, murder and slavery. You then say that a lack of empathy and an intent to do harm must also be present. The problem then becomes what constitutes consent. One can not really evaluate the parameters without this being clearly defined.Mr.Badham wrote: The idea of objective morality scares me more than the idea of subjective morality, for the same reason that objective patriotism scares me more than subjective patriotism.
I can't say for sure that there is no objective morality, but I can say for certain that no one knows what it is. Morality would appear to be fluid. It ebbs and flows. It evolves over time, all the while people profess to know what it is.
It subjectively seems to me that in order to be moral, one must harbour feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent.
Rape, murder and slavery are immoral because by definition they lack consent. Anyone who carries out these acts lacks empathy, and they intend to hurt the victim.
Only someone who claims to know what is objectively moral could claim that murder, slavery and genocide are at times (when God orders it) acceptable.
Can anyone think of an immoral act that could be done with empathy, consent and without the intent to hurt?
To answer the question posed. Malpractice is such a case. The person may have empathy, consent and no intent to do harm, but is merely negligent. It is immoral to fail to show due diligence.
Malpractice is not such a case. Malpractice is a legal term. You would have to look into the heart of the doctor to determine whether or not he had behaved immorally. Only the doctor would know for sure. He can be accused and convicted of malpractice, but only he knows for sure.
I would like to hear a particular case of what you think was negligence, but not immoral.
