Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something
Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something
I too highly suspect most moral relativists are full of shit and don’t actually believe in it. Ya’ll don’t believe in moral progress? A society of chronic rapists is not inherently bad outside of your societies or personal preferences? The overwhelming majority of moral decisions being relative doesn’t discount that at least one very important concept can be capable of superceding our preferences.
Moral “progress” only happens because of our collective judgement of what is right changing over time.
I expect this response despite the indication of its issue. Were nazi’s morally rigtheous in gassing millions of innocent people to death because they believed so? At that time that was their ‘progress.’ Independent of other socities or yourself having any issue, it’s simply fine to say that because a nazi thinks it’s fine, it is fine?
I don’t think so, and I don’t think that injustice is dependant on my preference to view it that way. It just is wrong.
Of course the Nazis weren’t right by our standards, and of course they were/are by their own. But by what universal standard can we judge their morality against ours? How can we know that what we think is right is the objective morality?
Saying “it just is” really just means “I think so”, and it there’s as much reasonable backing for you to say it “just is” wrong to be a nazi as there is for someone to say it “just is” wrong to be gay.
There is a distinction to be made between epistemology and ethics. Just because it is unclear how to judge an action as good or bad doesn’t mean that there isn’t a fact of the matter.
Objective morality implies that morals are not invented or created but discovered. Whence do these discovered morals come? How can one test a moral theory and arrive at an answer as to its objective veracity? What is the scientific unit of goodness?
Would need to go the a priori, teleological, or modal route - definitely no empirics to claim. I absolutely think objective morality can coexist with invented morals. As stated prior, the majority of morals likely are subjective, but it doesn’t follow to me that all of them are. I don’t think the idea that ‘using zyklon b to kill millions of innocent people is bad’ is an invention. I’m fine with the idea that people realized not through invention but discovery that, ‘yeah it is pretty fucked actually.’
I would argue that’s a corollary, not a discovery. It’s corollary to a subjective belief that life has value—one that I agree with, but that is by no means innately or objectively true.
Saying that something isn’t objectively quantifiable (like morality)
isn’t a value judgement on it
Subjectively the morality of your example is abhorrent, but objectively you cannot, cannot , cannot! quantity it! Morality only exists in our minds! That doesn’t make it any less meaningful, but it makes it
not
objective
So you also say that mathematics is subjective?
You can quantity maths. It’s the prime example of something objective and quantifiable. No I’m clearly not saying that.
What I mean with “exists only in our minds” is that it isn’t some externally measurable thing. There is no moralometer which can measure the morality of an action. It only exists to us, humans. That makes it subjective.
If you’re wondering about the meaning of the previous comment it is to clarify that saying there are no objective moral truths doesn’t mean I am dismissing morality. It just means that objectivity isn’t applicable to it.