There is absolutely an objective right and wrong.
Could you point me to how I can meassure or otherwise empirically confirm these objective rights and wrongs?
Comment on Philosophy meme
BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
“Subjective morality” is just what people tell themselves so they don’t have to do any actual introspection
Some cultural things may be subjective - take looking someone in the eye when conversing, for example. Some cultures find it disrespectful to do so, while others find it disrespectful not to do so.
But the big things? Actual morality? There is absolutely an objective right and wrong.
theKalash@feddit.ch 11 months ago
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
Just because you cannot empirically measure something (at least at the moment), doesn’t mean it can’t be true.
Take consciousness, for example. We all know we have it. But we cannot empirically prove it. Does that mean consciousness doesn’t exist? No, not at all.
PixxlMan@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Do we know that? No. We literally, truly, don’t know that. We may think it exists - I do, and so do you - but without empirical evidence we can’t know for certain.
theKalash@feddit.ch 11 months ago
Just because you cannot empirically measure something (at least at the moment), doesn’t mean it can’t be true.
I agree. However this is a very bad basis to start from if you want to find an actual truth. There is millions of ideas that were dreamed up by people that can’t be empirically denied or confirmed, including all the gods.
Take consciousness, for example
I think that is a great example. Because if we understood consciousness, we’d probably also understand how we come up with ideas, like morality.
That’s really the bigger point. Morality is an idea. It’s like countries. We divide up the planet on sections on a map we made up and agree that those now exist. Then we build stuff along the border to make it exist. But there is no “true” or “correct” way to divide the planet into countries and nations. It’s just a process that happens as an emergent property of a civilisation.
Just like consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. So ultimatly if you find out anything about how morality comes to exist, studying the brain is a good start.
But I doubt we’ll ever find any objective moral truths. Just a better understand of the process of how we came up with the idea in the first place.
BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
Well, that’s the tricky part. There isn’t much in the way of empirical measurements for morality, which is why it tends to be so varied. But truth being difficult to find doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There is still right and wrong.
As another user here put it, “Moral judgement is subjective. Moral truth is not.”
theKalash@feddit.ch 11 months ago
I don’t see the tricky part. If it can’t be empirically measured, it’s not objective.
So to put it correctly:
“Moral judgement is subjective. Moral truth is too.”
TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 11 months ago
you’ve lost the earth under the terminology. you’re upset with some truly awful shit in existence, and seem uncomfortable with calling it anything that might minimize the horror of it. “objectively bad”.
what if I told you that it can still be awful without being absolute? judgment requires a subject. passing judgment, that is seeing beauty. being subjective is one of the delights of human experience.
the only thing objective is that harming the subject is the ultimate violence. silencing the subject so that nothing can be called good or bad.
the rest is all up for debate.
hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
…wikipedia.org/…/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(ph…
Well, let’s look at geopolitics. The War in Ukraine. Putin says that the War is important to get rid of Nazis in Ukraine. A lot of ppl in Russia believe him.
I know for myself I don’t believe it.
Let’s walk through your definition: it’s a big thing I think. So either me or they are objectively right. Well depending on if you define this as “actual morality”. That concludes in your definition this can be objectively determined.
Well let’s walk through Wikipedia’s philosophical definition.
Can my opinion be formed independent of mind? That is, without bias, perception, emotions, opinion, imagination or conscious experience? Well I have biases against against Putin because I try to be neutral, but there’s a lot of news articles highlighting bad politics from him. I have a certain perception about starting wars on an argumentation without good evidence. My emotions tell me that ppl dying is bad. My opinions tell me that there is no justification for a war if it clearly isn’t a very limited defense against an attack. I do have an imagination of what the war looks like and what the consequences will be. And last but not least, ppl talking about how they’re relatives died or my father talking about his time in the army has left a conscious experience on me in that regard.
As you can see there’s a lot going on that makes this “objectively true” for me, but I really can’t split all of these influences from my opinion, therefore this is not moral truth.
Now I submit to you that you can’t find anyone who doesn’t have these biases to make the statement that the war is either right or wrong under that definition while being objective, per definition.
Which brings me to the conclusion that on this topic, your definition of it and Wikipedia’s definition on it fundamentally differ and bring me to opposite conclusions. This means either your definition is the one we should follow, or Wikipedia’s, and I have to say I’m gonna make my choice.
Btw this is in no way a dig at the idea that I wish there was some things that everyone knows are wrong, but I just think ppl are ppl and it doesn’t work for most things.
FMT99@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is an honest question; what would you say to someone who says: “Unfaithful women are to be stoned to death. God told me so, everyone I know agrees with me, so it is a moral absolute.”
On what basis are you (we) right and they wrong?
BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
God is a fairy tale, and stoning someone to death for any reason is horrible and barbaric.
1984@lemmy.today 11 months ago
Always enjoy a good stoning. The screams of a dying woman, wonderful thing.
Above is a bit of sarcasm to make my point. We do know inside what is wrong when we do something.
StillWatersPony@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Nothing is objective, least of all morality. And not everyone “knows inside when they do something wrong”. Some people are legit wired differently and don’t care, or actually get positive feedback from those screams you sarcastically brought up.
1984@lemmy.today 11 months ago
Yes, those are evil people. The world is made up of both kinds. But they are a lot less, and it’s not likely that they will get the majority to accept their twisted ideas.
Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Unfaithfulness is not objective. It’s subjective. Death is objective, not subjective.
This is a logical fallacy.
FMT99@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A religious person might disagree with both those statements.