Is morality objective, subjective or something else?

[Manibrandr System]

My entire philosophy is based on radical acceptance, having faith in others, and the idea that we're all connected.

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

I think our differing points of view are a good reflection of the overall issue Jason put on the table.

The ultimate point of this thread is that I am smart to have asked the question.

==

So my thought about all of the above is, quite simply: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." I lean more towards Manidbrandr System's philosophy here when it comes to borders. Their idea of "radical acceptance" will come with some downsides, but I would argue no-more-so than having to deal with any other subsection of the human race.

You mentioned the "sea of rapists" being primarily young transient men... well maybe the problem isn't immigration but the values we are instilling young men with globally.

Of course to be fair that's where you might reasonably argue that borders and legal immigration help people naturally integrate into a new environment. And we would be remiss to pretend that all humans are basically the same when frankly even cultures within the same country can be wildly different.

I believe in moving towards a maximally free society over a maximally secure society and I do believe the two are nearly polar opposites. I believe there will be generations of growing pains in doing so. But I also am aware that ours is far from an idyllic society, and there is merit to these opposing views coming into conflict as we develop.

Now while I believe that Centrism for its own sake is moral cowardice, I believe the synthesis that can come about as a part of this natural social friction is beneficial to our growing understanding of one another. Compromise is a nice place to visit, but a lousy place to end up. Especially when it comes to human rights.

/ramble

[Flamez]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Now while I believe that Centrism for its own sake is moral cowardice, I believe the synthesis that can come about as a part of this natural social friction is beneficial to our growing understanding of one another. Compromise is a nice place to visit, but a lousy place to end up. Especially when it comes to human rights.

Completely disagree. The world is not black and white, so why should morality be? Sometimes either extreme is not the right answer, a lot of the time there isn't a right answer. Finding something in the middle can sometimes be the best answer, although not perfect.

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"

[Manibrandr System]

That philosophy only works if the propositions on either extremes have equal value. In this case I'd argue that the presence and enforcement of borders creates unnecessary division between people, and reinforces a lot of xenophobic ideals at best, and phrenological racism at worst.