If the standard you use isnt true (or is relative), no matter how well you use it in figuring out what to do, all your moral judgements will be wrong (or just relative)
My point being it has “objective” in there but not in the way that matters.
Comment on Philosophy meme
Znarf176@feddit.de 11 months ago
I like Matt Dillyhuntys approach to objective morality: he picks a subjective and kind of arbitrary foundation like wellbeing and objectively measures all actions against this foundation.
poplargrove@lemmy.world 11 months ago
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Every standard is wrong or limited in ways, it doesn’t make them useless. Utilitarian views can be useful, but it’s also easy to argue that euthanasia for the handicapped is moral from a Utilitarian perspective.
poplargrove@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Sure but what Matt is suggesting would mean we can hold something completely wrong or even absurd as a moral framework but just so long as we use it consistently.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
You can. The absurdity is based on your inherent bias, the concept of absurdity is arbitrary.
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Next step is acknowledging that data is also very infallible and not objective.
TheSambassador@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not that data is subjective, it’s that the interpretation of that data can be subjective, and the raw data can be misleading.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Fallible
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 11 months ago
that’s the word