Well, Blue, I firmly believe that some people's opinions are worth more than other people's, depending on the subject. Nothing sets my teeth on edge (and I'll bet yours,too) so much as hearing some teenager whine: "That's just your opinion!" Yes, it IS just "my opinion," but if it is about something I have experience with and knowledge of, it is more likely to be correct than the opinion of someone who has neither. Note that I said more LIKELY to be correct; I did not say DEFINITELY more correct.
If I am looking for a recommendation for a good recording of Beethoven's 4th, for example, I will ask someone who collects a lot of Beethoven, not a Michael Jackson fan. If I want a good book on the Civil War, I will look for a recommendation from a historian with an established interest in the subject, not from my hairdresser. If I want advice about what human-rights cause to support, for example, I will turn to a human-rights activist. And so forth.
Ethics is no different. Some people have spent more time and thought on ethical questions than others have. They may be "professionals" -- ministers, priests, rabbis, or even ethics professors. Or they may be quite simply people who have lived admirable lives, people who impress others with their innate moral authority. I would expect their opinions on ethical matters to be much more valuable than those of the local sociopath, for example.
In short, I think it is a fallacy to assume that if something cannot be proved, it is therefore totally subjective.
In other words, I submit that your "subjective" morals are not only superior to the Nazis' morals, but slso not as "subjective" as you think they are.
But I will need another day, and definitely an earlier hour, to argue that one. <g> |
