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
    link
    fedilink
    -11 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
        11 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
            11 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
                11 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.

                  • @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    What? I never said consciousness in supernatural, just that we have a poor understanding of it and no way to measure it. I was just using it as an example of an objective statement for something we can’t externally confirm.

          • @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            11 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.

              • @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                11 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
                  11 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?

                  • @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    Oh in that context it’s absolutely worse. And in a complete vaccum where no action or even existence precedes or continues from that one moment of suffering it’s also bad.

                    Though because such a vacuum does not exist in reality suffering can be good. For example choosing to suffer to bring about some good outcome would be good. Or suffering that builds character for some future event. Also some forms of suffering are enjoyable to some people.

                • @ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 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.