Channel: Hamza Tzortzis
So look at this.
Right, this picture who knows what that is?
Hopefully I took it from the right source on Google Images. Basically, it's invasive spinal surgery, correct doctors.
It looks like you're right. Good. So it's invasive spinal surgery. Now, I want you to imagine that you're observing one of the senior surgeons in this hospital. So you're observing as a student, one of the most senior Surgeons of this hospital, and you see him consciously, within 10 snipping the spinal cord for no reason.
He just snips it doesn't like the guy doesn't like he smells or something just snips it. I don't like to be patient. Let me just snip your spinal code. Code. Yeah.
Is that morally wrong? Put your hand up if you think it's morally wrong?
So you all think it's morally wrong or morally wrong? Good. Put your hands down. Now, another question.
Is it objectively morally wrong? Put your hand up if you think it's objectively morally wrong with intent to snip the spinal cord of a patient that doesn't require it to be snipped? Now put your hand up you think is objectively morally wrong? It's not a quick trick question. Is it objectively morally wrong? Okay, all of you. Good. So
I've just tested your moral intuitions here. Yeah. Because when it comes to philosophy, generally speaking, you will reduce everything just to an intuition. And the whole philosophy is justifying your intuitions essentially, right.
Generally speaking, so not only do we think that snipping the spinal cord or cutting the spinal cord of a patient with intent is morally wrong. We've all agreed it's objectively morally wrong. Let me help you in the definition of objective here because we may have different definitions, okay.
When we're talking about something being objective, it's considering or presenting the facts without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. So in the context of morality, objective morals, something being objectively wrong, or objectively good means is not dependent on someone's limited mind, limited mind, or limited emotions and feelings. For example, one plus one is equal to two. That is an objective fact. Regardless, if you don't like maths, I hate maths right? Generally speaking, I'm like, you know, just because I hate maths, it doesn't now follow that one plus one is not two, right? And if I somehow tried to convince you that one plus one is equal to seven, you'd be
like, No, you're wrong. So this what we're talking about when we're talking about objective morals, we're saying it's not influenced or dependent on someone's personal feelings or emotions, or even limited mind, just like mathematical truths. One plus one is equal to two, regardless of what you say, if you tried to convince me just because your medical students that hey, Hamza, you're wrong. One plus one is actually you five, I've ignore you just just just what drugs are you taking? Yeah. Do you see my point? So this what we mean by something being objective, so if these moral values and facts are objective in this way, they sit outside of the human self, in some way, is not dependent
on my limited mind, or limited emotions. They're outside of me in a way that like, you know, you just imagine I'm holding a moral fact. Not that you can, because it's not really tangible. And this is meta ethics is metaphysical stuff. But generally speaking, if this moral value of this moral truth is objective, and it's not dependent on a limited mind, or limited emotions, therefore it's outside, so to speak, if it's outside, so to speak, it requires some grounding. It requires a foundation remember, meta ethics. What is its foundation? Why is it objective? How do you explain its objectivity? Where did it come from? What is this? Where is the source of this moral value? Do
you see the point? So require some kind of foundations? So far, so good? You with me? Good.
So one would argue Hold on a second, Hamza, don't you need some evidence to prove that morals are objective? Yes, we all believe it's objectively morally wrong with intent and consciously to snip someone's spinal cord. We know it's morally wrong, objectively. But where's the proof? Well, this is about meta ethics. You don't need proof. You don't need some kind of empirical justification to prove that a moral value is objective. Because it's about meta ethics you need first Prince
The bulls are the lenses that you put on your eyes to understand your moral intuitions. So when it comes to things like this, you don't need proof that is objective. Just like you don't need proof that causality exists. causality exists, we observe causes, and we observe effects. Fine. We might not know the nature between the causal link, what is the causal link? What is causality itself, but we don't need empirical proof to prove that this internal notion in our minds of causality actually exists. It's a metaphysical discussion. Okay. So you don't really need proof of things to be objective. If you could start with the first principle. That's why it's called an axiomatic
argument. You start with the first principle, its objective is based on my intuitions. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. And if you study Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy, there's a hell of a lot of assumptions going on. Anyway. Yeah, there's first principle, there's no first principles, free philosophy, even science, if you studied the philosophy of science, you'd understand that there are some assumptions, some first principles, namely,
that the external world exists, that there are external causal relations. That's a first principle. Another first principle or assumption that science has is that nature is uniform. If we observe 50% of the universe, and there's gravity, then it would follow that gravity permeates the whole universe, based upon the assumption that nature is uniform. Anyway, that's a lengthy discussion, but neither here or there, but you get my point, right. So we don't really need proof for the fact that, you know, we believe that morals are objective. However,
if you're talking about proof in a non empirical way, you're talking about is it coherent, then yes, we could start discussing belief, belief in some morals being objective, is that a coherent first principle or a coherent assumption, or a coherent axiom in order to really understand our moral intuitions? We could discuss that. But that's a separate topic. So from an Islamic point of view, although I have to be intellectually fair, that not all the theological schools actually agree with objective morals. For example, the
school of creed known as the shot era, the group of of Muslims that adopted the Ashlee creed, they generally speaking, I know there is a spectrum, they didn't basically agree that there's anything more about the universe, generally speaking, is just
arbitrary divine commands from that point of view. Okay, we have other schools of creed, like the more treaties, for example, they said that no, the human mind can rationalize and can actually understand using the sound reason that you have moral truths in the world.
Then you had the authorities, who basically said No, well, generally speaking, there are moral values that are objective, and they are grounded in God, but the ground and his commands and those commands are not arbitrary, because they link to his nature, because he is good. He's unbar, the source of all goodness, and I'm going to discuss that a bit later. Now, I'm going to basically talk about, I can't talk about all the schools, I'm gonna talk about the School of creed that I adopt, especially for the moral argument, because I think it's more coherent, but just to be intellectually fair to give you a taste of all the schools of Creed's from that point of view, okay, so you're
intelligent enough to basically navigate this effectively. So
why do I think from an Islamic perspective, there are morals that are objective? Well, it's very simple, because
the West sin are the worst. Evil, if you like, the most evil thing from an Islamic intellectual, spiritual perspective, according to the Quranic discourse, and the perfect prophetic traditions, is actually polytheism is actually worshiping other than Allah is not worshiping God, that is considered the highest
evil, if you like, will the worst evil. Now, what's interesting, can we actually say that subjectively morally wrong? No, because the Quran makes it in such an objective way that it is wrong. It is one of the greatest injustices from a spiritual perspective and one of the greatest evils to worship other than God, right, to associate partners with him. So can we really say, Oh, yeah, good says that by in a kind of subjective kind of sense. I don't think that's that's appropriate. Or he says that because it is based on his command and his command, that command is based on some kind of raw power. I don't see how you can navigate that if you look at the texts,
what I would say is, look,
part of God's nature is the fact that he deserves to be worshipped Allah, and Isla, the one who is worthy of all worship. worshiping God is a necessity by virtue of who he is. worshiping God is a necessity, by virtue of who he is. So therefore, you can't really say this moral command to worship
God is actually subjective as in Norway's or its objective because it's done in such an objective way. So that's why I would argue that there are objective moral values, especially in the Islamic tradition. Not only that, when you look at the neck cancers, the chapters of the Quran that revealed in the meccan period, you would see that God mentioned seems like justice and compassion. does good define them for us? No, I don't see a lengthy definition in the Quranic discourse on what Russia is on what compassion is fine. We have a linguistic definition and we may have some prophetic traditions that show that behavior expression of Rama and mercy. But does the Quran really elaborate
on what is missing? What is justice, especially in the meccan period when it was addressing the polytheist? Arabs? So if Allah if if God in the Quran is saying to polish, the Polish, the polytheist, Arabs, this is justice, this is mercy, then there is an assumption that they know there is a common moral denominator, the understood what justice and mercy was. So it's as if it was referring to some kind of objective sense that we can see or perceive in the universe it was he was targeting the moral intuitions, the objective moral intuitions in some way. You can't just claim all that justice is God's justice, where he defines and God's mercy Well, he defines really, but the
whole Quran is like a conversation with people and telling them to be just to be merciful. And he wasn't Allah wasn't talking just to Muslims, he was talking to the polytheist Arabs. So they must understood what justice and mercy meant, in some way. Otherwise, the most of the Quranic discourse would be absolutely meaningless. And I find that very problematic if you say there are no objective moral values, from that point of view, make sense of Islamic theology. So
objective moral values exists, it makes sense exists, it makes sense of our moral intuitions. Now, I want to now start to talk about if that's the case, then God exists. Think about this, right? If snipping the spinal cord of a patient that doesn't require his spinal cord or her spinal cord to be snipped within 10 unconscious consciously, if that is objectively morally wrong, as we've all agreed, as we all have agreed, then it follows God exists.
Sounds like a crazy claim, right? It does, isn't it? Okay, let me explain to you, right, don't worry. I'm not that crazy. So listen, here is the basic logic of the argument. It's a axiomatic arguments. We start with the axiom, the first principle that there are objective morals, if you start with that, it necessitates God's existence. Okay? Are you ready for this? It's not a leap of faith. It's not kind of, you know, some kind of false logical inference. No, it's actually it follows logically. Let me explain. Number one, if objective morals exist, God exists. Number two, objective morals exists three, therefore, God exists. Let me just elaborate why. So why is it the
case that if we believe axiomatically first principle that objective morals exist, that God must exist? Because God is the only foundation to rationally explain objective morals? Why? Because God number one, is not subjective. He transcends human subjectivity he's outside of the universe, he can make the universal moral claim.
God is an alien, a lacking alpbach, he is the knowing the wise and he is the good the source of all goodness. And God's names and attributes are what you call maximally perfect, they are to the highest degree possible. Right? They are to the highest degree possible. They have no deficiency and no flaw, and they are perfect. So follows when he commands, then his commands are good. And goodness is actually an essential part of his nature.
as Professor Ian Markham, he explains, God explains the mysterious ot pressing down our lives. And God explains the universal nature of the moral claim. As God is outside the world, God, the Creator can both be external, and make universal commands. Also, he's an objective source for morality, because he has the totality of moral knowledge from that point of view. Not only this, his commands are not subject to anything. He's not limited by anything external to him. So by definition, he is an objective source. So from this point of view, it's fine to make sense that if there are objective moral truths and objective moral truths are outside of limited self limited mind, outside of social
consensus and peer pressure and the outside so to speak. They require some explanation and grounding. Remember meta ethics to explain the nature of this moral value and where it came from. its founding
Well, the only way to explain it rationally is actually God's existence.
From the perspective that what explains the moral value, the objective moral value of God's commands, because God is outside of the universe, he is objective. He's not subjective. He has total moral knowledge, and all the things that we just mentioned, what else can ground objective morals? How else can you explain objective morals? And what's interesting? Allah says in the Quran verses in the Quran say, indeed, God does not order immorality. So one would argue, well, Surely there's alternatives. They can't just be God to rationally explain objective moral truths and values. There must be something else. Well, there is there are alternatives, but I'm gonna address why those
alternate alternatives are false. And those alternatives include biology, the Darwinian mechanism, for example, social pressure, moral realism, and constructivism. Now, these are meta meta ethical approaches, or some people claim they can be meta ethical approaches to explain objective morals. Now before I go and deconstruct them, if you're philosophically minded, you know that there is a key response to what I've said so far. I don't know what the key responses
it's a dilemma. What is it called? You three false dilemma? Yes. Excellent. So one would argue Holden's Hamza, this is fuzzy logic. Let me try and break down what you're saying here. God can't be the kind of rational foundation for objective moral truths and values. Because here's a dilemma. And this is you three false dilemma, sometimes known as Plato's dilemma. It basically goes like this. All right, so you're saying God exists because of objective moral values exists? If objective moral values exist, God must exist. objective moral values exist, therefore God exists, God, if God exists, why, because God commands and the only foundation for objective moral truths, and therefore
if God's commands are the only Foundation, therefore he must exist to, Okay, fair enough, but let's break it down. And this is what the Dynamo is saying, is something morally good because God commands it? Or does God command it? Because it's more really good?
Here's the document and repeat to you. Is something morally good because God commands it? Or does God command it because it's morally good? Now, one would argue this is a dilemma. There are two horns that to the dilemma. You have the arbitrariness horn, and you have the independent standard standard horn, let me explain what this means. So if you adopt the first part, which is
morality is defined by God's commands alone, then there's a little bit of a problem, you may be thinking as Muslims or as religious people, how's that problem? Because you just explained that objective moral truths are based on God's commands I have, absolutely. But there is an assumption here, when this part of the dynamic is basically saying that morality is defined by God's commands.
It's just the command in an abstract sense, divorced away from God's nature is dislocated away from God's nature. So what they're saying is, well, God could say that you should kill all 55 year olds, and it would be morally good because God just said it. We don't really appreciate that there's no doesn't make sense of our moral intuitions. Also, if we take this out of the dilemma in this way, we would have to believe that there is nothing in the universe that is objectively morally wrong, or objectively morally good. So we can't accept that part of the dilemma.
Because they're assuming there's just God's commands. And those commands are not linked to his nature in any way. They've dislocated God's commands away from his nature. So we can't say morality is defined just by God's commands in that way, because it makes it arbitrary. And it also makes us understand that there should be nothing in the universe that we should even consider as objectively morally wrong. Well, let's look at the other side of the dilemma. Well, morality is now external to God's commands, because it says, or does God command it because it's morally good? Well, if it's morally good, then you already know what good is to judge God's commands by so therefore, good is
outside of God's commands. gameover argument done.
So what they're saying is that moral standards are now completely outside of God.
So we're not going to accept that part of that dilemma either. So what's the solution? We can't take the arbitrariness horn, and we can't take the independent standard horn of the dilemma. What do we do?
We can't see that in an abstract way. morality is just based on God's commands.
Because we don't believe God's commands are dislocated from his nature.
And we can't accept the fact that morality is external to God that good is external to God.
So what do we do? Who will answer
who has the answer?
put the two together.
you would say
objective good is this.
Good. So objective good is based on God's nature good is something that I said in the beginning. So here's the response, there is a third option, it's a false dilemma. Why? Because God is good. As Bob, he is the source of your goodness, as Professor Acton in his really good, interesting, really interesting book really good book called The crown and the secular mind. He says, there is a third alternative, a morally stable god of the kind found in Scripture, a supreme being, who would not arbitrarily change his mind about the goodness of compassion, the evil of sexual misconduct, such a good always commands good, because his character and nature are good. Let me explain the response a
little bit further. So what we're saying is, there is indeed a moral standard, but it's not external to God.
So there is indeed a moral standard, but it's not external to God. It's, it necessarily follows from God's nature, goodness is part of God is not external to God. So we do have a standard, but our stand is not external to God is actually part of who God is as part of his reality, because he is elbahr. He is the source of goodness.
So his nature contains within it, the perfect the maximally perfect, non arbitrary moral standard. So when he makes a command, the command is a manifestation of his will. And his rule doesn't contradict his nature, which is good, wise, loving, merciful. So we have a standard by snow external to God, and is based on God's commands, but it's not arbitrary. It's actually part of God's nature. Shaboom Mike drop, as we say,
Yeah, there you go. We've solved the dilemma. Now a natural response from someone who doesn't agree with this, like an atheist or an agnostic or whoever, they may argue, well, you must know what good is to define God as good, therefore, we haven't solved the problem. Well, this is a big philosophical discussion about the kind of necessity of God's goodness I don't want to get into that. But a good a good response to this would be, well, God defines what good is because he's the only being worthy of worship, and the only being worthy of worship is the highest moral being.
we've solved the kind of response here the kind of evils dilemma doesn't break down our argument. So God's commands and God himself being the kind of rational foundation to explain objective moral truths. It still Strewth, it's still a strong argument. It still follows if objective morals exist, God must exist. But as I said, there are alternatives. Let's adjust the alternatives. We ready for the tentatives. Good. So the first one was biology.
I'm sorry. It just doesn't work. I do apologise Darwin and everybody else. It just doesn't work. And this doesn't dismantle the Darwinian mechanism. No, I'm not don't make that false inference. But you cannot use it as a as a basis for your meta ethics. Okay. You can't use it. For more ontology. You can't use it to explain the source of objective morals and to explain why morals are objective. Why? Well, let me quote you, Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin gave an extreme example as well. He basically said, If men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive bees, that can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would like the worker bees think it is sacred duty to kill their
brothers, and mothers will strive to kill the fertile daughters, and no one think of interfering
Because if we as human beings were reared under precisely the same conditions, the hive bees, if that's the case, then we wouldn't think it's morally wrong to kill fertile daughters.
Now, if you extend that example, and you start talking about the nurse shark, if you watch National Geographic, it talks about the nurse shark. And they did some studies or some observations, and they found that the nurse shark male, I believe, bites the fin of its mate and wrestles with it before it mates, that's tantamount to rape. So if we were, if we were read precisely under the same conditions as the nurse shark, who think rape, no problem, right? God forbid, right? But you get my argument here. So if morals are just about this rearing, you're reared, based upon certain biological conditions, then what happens? Number one, morals are not objective anymore, because they're subject
to inevitable biological changes. Also more than objective anymore because they lose their meaning. There's actually no meaning behind any morality if it just happens to be a kind of biological reaction to certain biological conditions. Where's the moral value and meaning behind most they're gone. It's finished. Hello says we
Say, right? So from that point of view, I don't think biology or the Darwinian mechanism is very strong. To explain the objectivity of morals. By the way, it can explain how we have the capacity to formulate ethical rules, of course, like natural selection, according to the moral philosopher, Philip kitcher, you could basically use natural selection to come to the conclusion that yes, you know, this is a basis for why we formulate ethical rules, fine, but that's not our discussion today. So biology is out the window. What's next? Who remembers what next? What's next? social pressure. We've all human beings, and this is the kind of humanist approach to, to to moral values. Because a
lot of humans believe that moral values are actually objective. And it's Yeah, when you know, rational human beings come together, will decide and it will be objective in that sense. Well, I don't think so. I don't think so. Because think about a lot of
more pressures in our society, for example, Nazi Germany in the 1940s, there was some moral pressure, sorry, social pressure in some way, some kind of consensus finding wasn't 100%. But there was something going on that really, you know, groups of people came together to think it was okay to kill Jewish people and to murder them and to think that the evil which we know is objectively morally wrong. So if we use social pressure as a basis for objective moral truths, then we have a problem here. Because more truths are subject to inevitable social changes. And if you study social psychology, society changes.
Just ask your grandma, just look at TV, like 20 years ago, MTV, was like, you know, I don't know, it was like, it's like reading the Bible. Honestly, look at MTV today. You know, that's, like, almost porn 20 years ago? Not that I know. But you know, I mean, yeah. So is mobile that I'm being you know, it's hyperbole. So if you get my point, right, so, so there, it's a crude example, but there are inevitable social changes. Now, if you study social psychology, you see that social norms are developed in the developed because of two main things, informational social influence, or normative social influence, which basically is based on the fact that we have a need to belong, and we have a
need to feel certain. So if I have a need to belong, and I have an idea that's alien to your ideas, I may suspend my ideas and throw them away for a while, and accept your views and ideas just to belong.
Conversely, the other one is that basically,
we have a need to feel certain. So if I'm uncertain about something, I go to the consensus. And that's how social norms are developed, and social norms change over time. So if I'm more values as a result of society and social norms, that we have a big problem, because they're going to be subject to inevitable social changes. And for me, morality loses its meaning. objective morality loses its meaning, and it's subject to inevitable social changes. So from that point of view, it doesn't explain objective morals at all. social pressure doesn't explain
object objective most any shape or form, we have another another alternative, which is called moral realism. Now, moral realism, agrees and it says, Yes, there are objective moral truths. There are objective moral values. more realism says yes, but they do not require foundation they just are.
I find this a little bit difficult because we require an answer to the question. Why is it objective? Where did it come from? Remember, meta ethics is about answering the question, why is this more value objective? And what's its foundation? Where did it come from? It's almost ignoring meta ethics in a way saying, we can't answer the question or the only way to answer is they just are get over it move forward. This is also known as moral objectivism as well. But for me, it gets a little bit more tricky when we understand morals as moral duties. Because when we're thinking justice exists, and compassion exists, we don't think of that in some kind of abstract way. Because
when we say yes, this is the compassionate thing to do, this is the just thing to do. We, we are obligated, we have a duty right? I am duty bound to be compassionate in certain context, especially you know, as medical practitioners, you have to show the compassion, you have to show that fairness etc. You have a moral duty is not only recognizing that justice exists somewhere in the world, and compassion exists. But what explains that drive to fulfill those moral duties? more realism doesn't explain that.
Because more duties are owed, owed to him.
Do you see the point and that's why it makes sense of God's commands because it's owed to God. More the sense of moral duties make sense of God's commands from that point of view. So more realism is not an alternative either. There's another alternative. One would argue it's a rational alternative and this is called constructivism. Now
I've taken this from an academic encyclopedia, and you can find it online and mine I forgot the reference. I'll give it to you later. But basically constructivism is the view that insofar as there are normative truths, for example, truths about what we ought to do so moral truths, there are in some sense determined by an idealized process of rational deliberation, choice, or agreement. Now you have to understand something.
constructivism doesn't say that. As a result of using your rational faculties and irrational process, you're going to understand what is moral? No, that's epistemology to know, to find out what is more, but what he basically says is, is that morality is construed through rationally meaning, the very fact that nine is rational, that becomes a foundation for morality. And he explains the objective nature of morality is like the two sides of the same coin.
So it's not just like, Oh, I'm rational, therefore, I'm going to find out in my own way, what good is no, that's epistemology, but rather constructivism says that the very fact that the human being is rational, that is the foundation for morality. And
it explains the nature of objective moral truths. Why the objective in the first place? Now there's a big discussion, there are volumes of discussion, I want to get into it. But basically, one would argue well, what kind of more what kind of rationality you're going to use? You know, are you duty bound to even be rational? Right? Because if rationality and and objective morals are two sides of the same coin, then in order for objective morals to make sense, you should also be duty bound to be rational. But are you you don't have to be many of us are really irrational. Anyway, there are many studies, if you study the philosophy of the mind. And you study for example, cognitive science,
there are even theories that claim that human beings are not rational. Right? Even if you studied David Hume, he said, our morality has nothing to do rationality, which is we just tried to intellectually justify our emotions, right? But that's a bigger discussion. And it's more nuanced. And I've just expressed it, so I do apologize.
Go Google it. No, don't Google it. Go buy a good book on it. But anyway, the point is, constructivism doesn't really provide a meta ethical foundation for objective moral truths. So
I think God commands and God's existence is the most rational foundation for morals for objective moral truths. They explain where they came from.
Because commands and they explain an end, God's existence explains why moral truths are objective because of who God is. Game over. So if you believe in objective moral truth, like we discussed what objectivity is, from a moral point of view, it philosophically necessitates God's commands and God's existence. If you disagree with me, give me an alternative.
Now, before we get to the more epistemologists want to address certain things, one would argue Hold on a second Hamza, but in your in religious discussions and discourse, even in our own intuitions, you know, things are not objective, because morals change over time.
Now, there is a conflation between to understand understandings of morality here, absolute morality on objective morality. Absolute morality basically says, killing is wrong, right? Or the cessation of human life is wrong. If there is a conscious with intent to see someone's life, that is morally wrong. Regardless, that's absolute morality, objective morality slightly different. It says, ceasing or stopping someone's life. Right? For no justification, is morally wrong. So objective morals is based upon the moral variables is context sensitive. For example, absolute morality would say it is morally wrong to kill a crazy guy with a machine gun, if that was the only option to stop him
killing 300 children in school.
Absolute morality would say, We don't care if he's going to kill 300 kids, killing him is still morally wrong. objective. Morality says Hold on a second. If that's our only option, then it's morally good to stop this person's life, if that was the only way to stop him, killing few 100 children.
You may disagree with example, but don't it's a logical fallacy to down the example you get the point yet to get the essence of the point. So there's a difference between absolute morality, morality and objective morality. Objective morals are objective, from the point of view, that they transcend human subjectivity and limited minds and emotions based upon the moral variables is context sensitive. So there's a conflation with different types of morality here. The other thing would be Hamza in order for this to work. You have to believe that most our objective remains the first principles I spoke about in the beginning. The fact that it's axiomatic it's first principle,
you just have to adopt the fact that some not all but some
objective? What if someone says I disagree with you? Fine. You don't have to agree with me.
But it becomes very interesting, doesn't it? It's like a double edged sword.
Because if you accept
the objectivity of some morals, like snipping the spinal cord of a patient, right?
For no reason, deliberately, right, if you accept that some morals are objective, it necessitates God's existence. But if you don't like that conclusion, you'd be like, oh, morals are not objective anymore. There are no objective morals. What happens now is, someone can snip, therefore, the spine of a patient and say, you could have your view, I have my view, I think it was ethically morally good to do it. And you can't point the finger at the KKK or ISIS in an objective moral way, from a philosophical point of view. Because Where's your foundation? If it is subjective now? helaas
I have a son, welcome. All different moral views. You can have a bit of the pie. I'll have a bit of my moral pie as well. They may contradict each other but so well, that's life get over it.
Right. It becomes like a double edged sword right?