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

  • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s exactly the point. For example, people used to think chattel slavery in the US was morally acceptable because they viewed black people as inferior. But today we would say that black people are not inferior and that they were mistaken. The moral relativist would say that slavery was okay to do back then because that’s what the people agreed on. Do you still agree with the moral relativist?

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree that morals are relative considering there are a ton of people who still believe black people are inferior and also places with slavery.

      Something can be morally objective if every single person in the world believes it but I can’t think of a single example of that.

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That would be the case if morals were something we can measure outside the human experience. Unfortunately there is no way to measure if something is moral or not outside how someone feels about it.

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not really, if absolutely every single human at all stages of life believed it’s morally good to spit in their palm every day that would be an objective moral truth, there would be no subjectivity to it. For morals though no such thing exists.

              You don’t need to be able to observe it externally to distinguish it. For example i can say I have a conscious experience and that would be objectively true even though we have a pretty minimal understanding on what that really is or how to measure it.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You can measure brain activity but not consciousness. Consciousness is most likely an emerging property of brain activity but we can’t really say more with out current understanding of it.

                  • robo@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You can ever solve a mystery you can’t properly identify to begin with.

                    People feel like something more than physical is going on. Rather than see it as a natural consequence of abstract thinking and self-reflection, they jump to the conclusion that this sense is supernatural.

                    Science isn’t in the business of examining vague hunches. The first step to getting an answer is deciding what there is to explain. Our current theories on the brain are compatable with people thinking about their own thoughts, and even having emotional reactions to that process.

                    Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing contradicting the scientific worldview has happened. So what is there to explain?

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not saying that, just that there’s no outside way of verifying if something is true or not in case of morals. I don’t believe objective morals exist because you can’t find a single moral stance shared among all of humanity not because you can’t measure the truth of that stance.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Is suffering good or bad? I don’t mean that in a specific context, but any type of suffering in itself.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I can’t really say about all kinds of suffering, it really depends on context.

                  It’s like asking if all love is good. There are so many situations I can imagine it could be good or bad or even neutral.

                  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    With out of context I mean in it’s nature. Imagine you have to cut off someone’s leg who doesn’t like pain and won’t profit from experiencing it during the amputation now or in the future, is it better to do it in the way it causes the most pain or the way it causes less pain, when it leads to exactly the same result?

                  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Exactly, physical pain and other forms of suffering are an objective reality. You can, in theory at last, decide objectively whether any decision will lead to more or less pain immediately and in the future.

                    If you look at ethics you could assume the only axiom it has is that when comparing more pain or less pain, less pain is better. This is even independent from circumstance if you consider all suffering now and in the future that are consequences of an observed decision.

                    In my opinion that makes the decision whether something is morally bad or good objective in it’s nature.