• 2 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldPhilosophy meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.’


  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldPhilosophy meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.


  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldPhilosophy meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.


  • Yeah, I think people need to focus on this aspect the most. They are not going to deny their book. Worming their way through scripture to claim a new fundamental way of understanding seventeen hundred year old writings is going to be incredibly difficult to do. It’s written so explicity. While certain texts written in different areas of the world have been considered non-canonical The Bible™ has never had a serious alteration aside from translation errors that may not have understood the original authors intent. The church will identify the change as moral progress and a better understanding of God, but don’t expect yhem to condemn those who used scripture against homsexuality previously.






  • The non human animal thing is about the confusing attitudes & behaviors humans have towards them, and how they are unequally applied based on arbitrary traits or nebulous concepts. In other words, in consideration of those individuals who desire to not be used or exploited, why everyone currently exploiting them needs to consider changing those attitudes & behaviors.