I don't understand this example. how can a cat choose not to torture its prey? the morality of humans do not apply to non-humans.
Morality is morality.
First you're telling me it's objective, now you're telling me it only applies to humans.
I have experienced first hand, from my own cat, that 'lower order animals' are capable of making decisions/choosing their actions (and being influenced)
please explain how you differentiate them
I differentiate them because in the latter 2 examples, people are directly affected. Someone loses money, or their freedom.
In the first example, nobody is harmed. Nothing is lost.
No, there's no judge in these examples, since no one will ever know, aside from those committing the acts.
Exactly, the people who know/committed the act are the judge. They judge their own actions. Now that we've been made aware, we judge their actions too.
similarly to the animals question, morality doesn't apply when there's no capacity to choose otherwise.
There is still a capacity for choice, it's just the capacity for context/understanding is limited.
yes. non action is just as responsible as action. (see pete singer and the drowning child)
Neither you nor Singer have addressed
how
of course, they create unnecessary harm.
There is a difference between influence and control, though.
Incorrect. Intentions do factor in, as does capacity. These by no means results that awareness is required for the act to be wrong.
Okay, so if both intention and outcome are factors,
perfect morality cannot exist.
People can only understand the immediate consequences of their actions.
AND, what about the very nature of existence?
We all interact with one another, so for example, if I were to punch someone in the face it could stop them from getting hit by a car a minute later.
If the driver had not found his wife cheating on him, he would have not got in the car at that time.
If the driver next to him didn't finish his coffee he would have been in a different place, and so on and so forth.
Just like basic algebra, we are limited to measuring one variable at a time.
For both of these the answers vary on the case. The objective morality i refer to are the very fundamental kind.
What is this fundamental objective morality you speak of, kind sir?
That's ok. Morality is not abitrarily defined, which is what those who espouse pure relativism are essentially arguing.
I don't know how relativism=arbitrary, but if you could expand on that thought I'd be willing to engage in a discussion about it.
Think about the dead, why do we honour wills?
I don't know what that has to do with the objective/subjective discussion, but if I were to answer it, I would say something along the lines of respecting the wishes of the person who lived, irrespective of their present existence.
