Moral Absolutism

It just occurred to me that some of the same arguments that are used to debate objective realism could be used to debate moral absolutism. The hypothetical tree in Uncle Ken's yard does not exist because people believe it exists, it's exists independent of belief or perception. Similarly, although people's opinions and beliefs about right and wrong may vary, a moral absolutist believes that the existence of good and evil is not dependent on people's beliefs. Of course, that in itself is a belief but, if it's not true, then it is the belief that is in error, not the intrinsic existence of good and evil. God and Satan are the cultural personifications of good and evil but, even if God and Satan turn out to be fictional characters, good and evil still exist in their own right, just as objective reality exists in its own right. Indeed, objective reality includes good and evil, just like it includes everything else in existence. If there really are no good guys or bad guys in the world, it's just because nobody has gotten it right yet.

When we discuss whether or not the world is better off today than it used to be, do we mean the whole world on average, or do we mean only certain groups of people? By some accounts, the poor people of today are better off than the rich people were a long time ago. It has been said that the richest Roman emperor who ever lived didn't have a shirt on his back or a decent pair of pants to wear. Well, I suppose there are still some people in the world who don't have that, so maybe that's not the best example, but you get the idea. There is a lot of talk these days about the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Is that what we're talking about, or are we saying that the poor people of today are worse off than poor people used to be?

I have wondered about the claim that unvaccinated people increase the risk of vaccinated people getting the disease. If the vaccine doesn't protect you from the disease, then what good is it? Then again, birth control is not 100% effective either, but it's more effective than not using birth control, so maybe that's the logic. I got all my shots when I was a kid, but there weren't as many shots to get in those days as there are now. I remember that there were three "childhood diseases": measles, mumps, and chicken pox, that you were supposed to try to get as a child because it was worse if you got them later in life. I understand that they vaccinate against all three today which, I suppose is safer if it works.