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

  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    162·
    9 months ago

    All 3 would receive a negative response in the last 100 years in different parts of the world. Hell there are plenty of places currently where women can’t vote, slavery is a thing and the government isn’t working toward a better society. Those places wouldn’t exist if those people thought it was morally wrong. Objective morality is definitely not a thing.

    • 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world
      24·
      9 months ago

      The “truths” picked here are just pretty terrible to make that point. There’s for example one kind of slavery that people are usually fine with: children are to some extent the slaves of their parents. They have to do what they say, have no freedom of where they want to live and should they run away, the police will return them to their owners. Oh and kids can’t vote either and roughly half of them are female.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
      14·
      9 months 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
        23·
        9 months 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
            1·
            9 months 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
                1·
                9 months 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
                    1·
                    9 months 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.

              • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                21·
                9 months 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
                  1·
                  9 months 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
                    1·
                    9 months 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.