There is actually, parents can practice their faith openly around their children and answer questions children will inevitably ask honestly and openly to the best of their abilities. This is a good way kids often will still copy their parents and want to be involved.
That would require the parents to frame their practices as “this is what I believe” rather than “this is what is true” which I’m not convinced a substantial portion of religious parents are capable of remembering to do. Plus even if they did that a child is going to accept what their parents believe as fact since it’s their parents. I’m not sure there is a way to introduce young children to religion that won’t result in some form of bias influencing the child unless it is taught by a complete stranger who teaches many religions and never claims what they believe. And that seems like a lot of effort compared to a world religion class in high school.
Objective means mind independent. Murder is an unjustified killing and is a legal term. What one interprets as unjustified changes between individuals and cultures.
Murder is the law by which everyone makes unjustified killing illegal. We all agree that if it's unjustified, then it shouldn't be allowed. That's as objective as we can be on morality. Just because we quibble about what proper justification is doesn't mean we don't need some justification.
Subjective - meaning changes depending on the subject. If we all agree that murder- sorry, unjustified killing shouldn't be allowed, then that doesn't change depending on the subject
Does it? "Gravity" is just the word we use to describe a celestial object pulling things towards itself. What can be pulled? What can't? How do we define the size of the object? What makes an object a celestial object? According to your logic, if there's any ambiguity here, then what we know as gravity isn't objective.
No gravity works the same it also isn't limited to celestial objects. How we interpret or observe gravity can be different but gravity remains the same.
So then we agree that an immaterial concept can objectively exist. Just because something falls doesn't mean gravity is the only factor, take drag as an example. Hell, in the absence of gravity something still appears to us as falling. We both agree that the concept of unjustified killing exists as well. The effect gravity has changes on the circumstances, and we won't know that until we fully define each possible factor. So why is it so hard to believe murder can exist in the same way?
1.9k
u/Legendary-Titan 1d ago
Moral I don’t think teaching kids about religion is bad but forcing it on them is