Submitted 1 year ago by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to [deleted]
https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/cf6f6c41-24a1-4c1d-a43d-1638aa06d7af.webp
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
I don’t see the contradiction here. Person on the right is just asking what the person’s beliefs on those matters are, not whether they believe those beliefs are objective or subjective.
Don’t you see? Objective truth is whatever moral absolutsts believe. And no, they don’t see the contradiction there.
I couldn’t agree more!
This is no conclusion. You can call it objective. All moral is based on subjectiveness: Different people have different morals. Especially ideology can have different morals. For example Nazism has a morality that the (in the eyes of the ruling party) “weak” kin should be exterminated and the “strong” kin should spread more and survive.
This is a moral standpoint, and because objects like “good” and “bad” are based on moral, the political correctness of the moral is subjective.
In ideology there is no right and wrong if you have no premises and no moral yourself, so to speak, if you’re really objective.
Calling something objective is in truth just reactionistic.
But of course I think that in any debate there should be moral premises, like for example a democratic parlament should always have the premise: “for the people”.
In reality it’s quite different sadly.
Of course different people again have different understandings on what makes everyone in a democratic society happy, but for example right wing parties that praise capitalism or fascism there are definitely people that would gain from that.
Capitalism has the consequence that the rich get richer, and so to not devalue the currency, the poorer have to get poorer, even if they don’t get less money, but the amount of money that exists devalues the money of the poor. Inflation. And if political power can be bought through lobbying or corruption, there does not exist a democracy.
Fascism has the consequence that one group of people become absolute and govern the rest which is definitely not democratic.
This seems to assume reality is only that what can be measured by humans currently. But decisions have consequences even if we can not foresee them. To assume that there is no objective morality assumes that consequences were random or exist independent from causes.
And if political power can be bought through lobbying or corruption, there does not exist a democracy.
I have to disagree there, in that I think it’s a bit more subtle.
There will always be people who seek power for self-enrichment and at the same time those people who see having power over others as a great responsability (who would probably be the best in terms of fair and honest yielding of that power), often avoid it exactly because they feel the “weight on their shoulders” would the too much to bare.
So you’ll always have at least some people holding power who use it for personal upside maximization, including via corruption.
Your really can’t have a perfect Democracy totally free of crooks in power, as even if you magically made it so, lots of people seek power for personal upside maximization and sooner of later some would get through.
Instead, what Democracy has is whole concept of the 3 independent Pillars Of Democracy, the Political, the Judicial and the Press, which watch each other and have some for of power over each other (the Press indirectly via influencing voters), and that’s what’s meant to create a sort of “dynamic” balance as crooks seek power but at the same time crooks in power are getting caught and thrown out (even punished).
Now, if you look at some of the most flawed of Democracies (personally I don’t think they’re trully so on account of their voting systems mathematically rigged for power duopoly) - the US and the UK - you will notice that the Press was subverted first (and this has been going on long enough and deep enough that some people genuinelly believe partisanship - i.e. taking sides in Politics, so submission to a Political Party - in the Press is a good thing) and then the Political system became more and more corrupt, with in the US the additional problem that even the Judiciary pillar has been subverted at several levels by the Political pillar (not that in the US there was ever much independence of between them to begin with as lots of top positions in the Judiciary are of political nomination).
Anyways, all this to say that we’ll always have pressures making political power “buyable”, hence why its so important to understand the function of and protect the other Pillars of Democracy and their independence as they’re part of the mechanics which pushes the other way, and whilst the system cannot achieve and remain perfect in a static way, it can achieve a dynamic balance that as the crooks get found out, kicked out and their deeds undone.
Capitalism has the consequence that the rich get richer, and so to not devalue the currency, the poorer have to get poorer
I don’t think that’s true in an economy where the population is constantly growing. It’s like saying in a utopia where everyone has the same wealth, having kids would make everyone poorer.
Shit meme, so apt for the community, I guess. Patrick represents a guy stating his own morality, which doesn’t oppose the final sentence, meaning this meme doesn’t follow the expected format nor does it have a point whatsoever.
This doesn’t prove anything? I mean… There are people who don’t think women should vote, or that slavery was good…
What? So just because I happen to agree with your stance, I also have to concede that there’s such a thing as objective morality?
Morality is subjective by definition.
People who down vote genuinely believe objective morality is possible, but it’s literally impossible and it’s incredibly obvious and self evident this is true.
It’s only self evident if you accept your own morality is subjective. There are people who think morality is defined by some invisible friend who is right about absolutly everything.
Moral judgements are relative, moral truth is not.
Another philosophy “conundrum” solved by your friendly neighborhood Skelator! See you next time!
isn’t moral truth determined by people making moral judgements?
No. Truth is not relative. Interpretation and consensus, neither are truth.
Patrick’s last sentence is still consistent with everything that he said above. He expressed HIS opinion and HIS morals above.
No ethical framework can be truly objective. This is because there is no universal constant that backs any ethical framework. We need universal constants to verify an objective statement. For example, the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. Also it is measureable. How do you measure the permissibility of an action? We do not know.
In conclusion, Patrick was right when he implied that there was no objectivity in ethics.
I’m seeing this point about moral epistemology a lot in this thread. Of course, philosophers have constructed convincing arguments in favor of different theories (classic ones being virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism). If you were to take a look at those arguments you might be persuaded to one camp or another.
Also, I find this objection makes more sense for the moral skeptic than the moral relativist. If we really can’t know the moral value of an action, then why settle for saying its based on what humans think? Why not just go all out and say either 1) there is no such thing as moral value or 2) there is moral value but we have no way of knowing what it is.
If we really can’t know the moral value of an action, then why settle for saying its based on what humans think
I never said that we can’t know the moral value of an action. All that I’m saying is that the moral value of an action is dependent on the entity giving the value. Morals cannot exist without beings capable of having morals.
Why not just go all out and say either 1) there is no such thing as moral value or 2) there is moral value but we have no way of knowing what it is.
Because saying either of these two statements would not reflect reality. There IS a thing such as moral value. It’s just not constant for all beings capable of having morals. For the second option, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is indeed a universal moral constant. Hence, “knowing” that value goes out of the window.
How is one Patrick agreeing equal to objective truth?
We get it, you want slavery back, therefore viciously beating you to death is morally acceptable because the consensus admits your life has no value.
the logic understander
Half of the comments in here are a bunch of equivocations on the words.
“Objective” morality would mean there are good things to do, and bad things to do. What people actually do in some hypothetical or real society is different and wouldn’t undermine the objective status of morality.
Listen to this example:
This is a functional should statement. Maybe Todd does go, or maybe he doesn’t. But if he wants to fulfill his desires, he should travel if he wants to go to the bank. The point is that should statements, often used in morality, can inform us for less controversial topics.
Here’s another take: why should we be rational? We could base our epistemology on breeding, money, or other random ends. If you think I should be rational, you’re leveraging morality to do that.
Most people believe in objective morality, whether they understand it that way or not. Humans have disagreed over many subjects throughout history. Disagreement alone doesn’t undermine objectivity. It’s objectively true that the Earth revolves around the sun. Some nut case with a geocentric mindset isn’t going to convince me otherwise. You can argue it’s objective because we can test it, but how do I test my epistemology?
This is just a philosophy 101 run around. I’m a moral pluralist who believes in utilizing many moral theories to help understand the moral landscape. If we were to study the human body, you’d use biology, physics, chemistry, and so on. When looking at a moral problem, I look at it from the main moral theories and look for consensus around a moral stance.
I’m not interested in debating, but there’s so many posts making basic mistakes about morality. My undergraduate degree was in ethics, and I’ve published on meta ethics. We ain’t solving this in a lemmy thread, but there’s a lot of literature to read for those interested.
I guess I don’t really understand. Does moral objectivism argue that there is “one true” framework for assessing the rightness of decision/action, or merely that there are objectively right/wrong answers within any given framework?
Meta ethics focuses on the underlying framework behind morality. Whenever you’re asking, “But why is it moral?” That’s meta ethics.
Meta ethics splits between cognitivism (moral statements can be true or false) and non-cognitivism (moral statements are not true or false). One popular cognitive branch is natural moral realism, the idea there are objective moral facts. One popular non-cognitivism branch is emotivism, the idea that moral statements all all complicated “yays” or “yucks” and express emotions rather than true/false statements.
Cognitivism also has anti-realism, which is there are moral facts, but they are truth/false conditional based on each person or group. My issue is you lose the ability to call out certain behavior as wrong; slavery is wrong; not respecting others is wrong. If you want to believe all morality systems are valid, meaning your morality is no better than some radical thought group’s, then go ahead. On an emotional level, speciesism level, rights level, deontological level, utilitarian level, and many more slavery is wrong. Again, some nut job doesn’t invalidate all other thoughts. That’s my take.
If objective morality existed, we wouldn’t be arguing about those things since we would all be in the same agreement.
Even “murder is wrong” isn’t objective morally when you ask someone who believes in the death penalty.
This argument makes a fundamental mistake. Objective does not mean everyone agrees. Objective just means it’s true.
The earth goes around the sun is objectively true, but give me 5 minutes and I can find you someone to disagree with that statement.
Disagreeing with an objective truth just means you’re wrong.
While that works with ‘facts’, it doesn’t work for opinions. A sense of morality is exactly an opinion or set of opinions that define what is and isn’t right. It is exactly mired in perspective and again this is very self evident.
Muslims say that music is Haram because it is said so in Hadith, does that make music objectively wrong? They believe when a religious authority states this is true, that the religious authority has made a canonical judgement ( fatwa ) that is basically binding.
Am I a heathen for liking music then?
I can’t believe people are so naive as to think objective standards for morality are even remotely possible.
Look at the upvote/downvote ratio on OP’s comment. That you all you need to know lol. Wish there was a !philosophymemes community on Lemmy
“Objective just means it’s true”. No it doesn’t. How do you even define “truth”? How do I know that I am not the only real person and that all of u r NPCs? How do I know that I am not in a simulation? Now, discussing about the simulation hypothesis is dumb, as it is unscientific in nature. It is not testable.
What is true can be established only when it goes through the scientific method. Hence, an “objective” statement is that statement that would be agreed upon using the scientific method by a certain consensus.
Morality is not testable. Hence, the scientific method cannot be used here. Hence, it can never be objective.
I’d assume it got removed because the title didn’t include rule, but the modlogs just call you unhinged.
Honestly I think I agree with the modlog.
It for removed because it was posted in 196 lol
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.
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?
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.
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.
It got removed because you’re meme is objectively wrong.
no ur a meme
I don’t use 196 but aren’t images on there supposed to be funny? That’s probably why this was removed.
aren’t images on there supposed to be funny? the rule is you have to post when you visit, it doesn’t say anything on what you have to post.
Maybe you can tell me what the numbers 196 are supposed to reference/mean. I’ve seen memes from there but there’s no theme that I can detect.
It’s the successor to 195, which was named after the creators’ apartment number
196 community can have some very strict moderation at times. Mods were/are on the lookout for sus political takes. 🤷♀️
They were banned for this post: lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/3769100
Blahaj will remove anything that makes anyone mildly uncomfortable, including having to think too hard
I don’t like the way moderation is handled in general. I keep posting things I think will be allowed that get removed and there is little explanation and no notification. You have to dig up your post in the modlog of that instance and the rules are pretty much up to the interpretation of the mods.
For example, if you make a meme about “Eating the rich”, that’s fine. If you make a meme about abortion, ban hammer incoming.
There’s a segment of the community that makes their delicate sensibilities everyone else’s problem. Unfortunately that segment contains the mods.
Hey OP you are allowed to message a community mod and ask them if they are able to give insight about your posts being removed, by the way.
Good
Don’t write off our whole instance, damn. Yeah, its a transgender instance and our community has put up with a lot of bullshit arguments both outside (gender critical) and inside (transmedicalism). We generally nip it in the bud.
I think 196 community mods are very strict, though. The rules there are basically skeptical of all political posts, and I would understand if more meme and political meme communities arose with less strict rules.
I still poke my head every now and again and see what’s up but it definitely Isn’t my main instance. More power to yall though, that’s what federation is about
“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.
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?
God is a fairy tale, and stoning someone to death for any reason is horrible and barbaric.
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.
Unfaithfulness is not objective. It’s subjective. Death is objective, not subjective.
This is a logical fallacy.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
…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.
Can’t something be objectively immoral whilst simultaneously being something that some people like to do? Does the objective morality of any given action need to be linked to a specific groups preference?
Slavers liked to keep slaves but it didn’t make them right to do it. Im sure the slaves didn’t enjoy it. Objectively, it’s morally wrong to gain from somebody elses loss. The fact that people are happy to do it doesn’t affect moral objectivity.
Objectively it’s morally wrong to gain from someone’s loss. So… winning anything? Schadenfreude? A profitable short position? Picking a penny up from the ground?
Anyway, the specifics aside… how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is objectively wrong to gain from someone else’s loss?
Winning anything? Is that always at someone elses detriment? Are you saying that because there are winners, there must always be losers? Because i would argue that winning something doesn’t cost the ones that didn’t win anything. We all started at the same point. As losers (or not winners), they have the same that they did before. Only the winner sits at a different state.
If my gain causes suffering of others, then even though i would be happy about my gain, it would still be wrong to cause that suffering to others.
Even animals have an understanding of morality. It is not limited to humans. Its just more pronounced and debated.
You’re correct on your judgment but your opinion stems from a different social stance on the underlying issue.
(that sounded really pedantic and it was not my intention)
Morality is a human creation. By default, nothing is wrong or right, until a human mind, be it an individual or colective one, analyse it and evaluate it.
This does not mean you can not view something as being immoral while others do or understand it as not a moral concern. This difference of understandingb is what moves any subject into the moral/immoral spectrum.
Im not sure about that. Many animals show a sense of morality. The difficulty, i think, comes from the need to ascribe morals to everything we do and to find nuance that confuses the fundamental tenants of morality. At a basic level there are some things that many animals other than humans inherently know are good or bad.
An Aztec would not agree to any of that. They took slaves, they didn’t allow women to vote because they didn’t allow voting and women were second-class and they weren’t interested in a fair and equitable society, which is part of the reason their enemies helped the Spanish take them down.
So I’d say that your ‘objective truths’ didn’t apply to a major human civilization.
So is this meant to be a cryptic argument against objective morality and for less ethical actions? Group consensus and moral relativity can apply to… Idk, the Nazi regime?
OR is this an argument saying we need more people to agree about what is “objectively” moral if we want it to become true? Democratically around consensus?
I imagine this argument has been used in bad faith more than it has been used in good faith.
The only way you can be sure that there is one 'true morality is, “If you don’t want it done to you then don’t do it to others.”
if I kill someone’s loved one for some reason maybe for me it is not morally wrong because that person “deserved it” but if they kill someone dear to me can I consider it morally acceptable? definitely not
But did you follow the rule?
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.
wait until this place hears that killing babies is bad as an objective moral truth
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?
All of those things are group consensus? Like there are definitely examples of when group consensus was the other way and those things were practiced freely
it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong.
I once got comments removed and community banned and found some explanations on the mod log on the bottom of the website of the instance
I believe in Objective Morality
If you are harming someone else without proper cause. You are doing evil.
Sam Harris doesn’t like this idea, lol. “morality is wellbeing!”, well then what is wellbeing to a bad person? it’s all relative
Fuck it, the right doesn’t follow rule or law. If I was her I’d laugh in their face and say “no”.
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This isn’t the contradiction you make it to be. Patrick, in the first three slides, is just repeating the group’s xx
charliespider@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Came here to say this exact thing
Jay@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I would have used a lot more words, but that’s exactly what I wanted to say.
spacesweedkid27@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I sadly already made me 200w comment before reading the comments 🥲
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I would have just said Patrick’s opinions are subjective not objective
balderdash9@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
If you really think chattel slavery was morally acceptable for the slave owners just because there was a group consensus that the slaves were inferior… then I’m willing to let you go on thinking that
hydroel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I feel like you’re intentionally missing your own point.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You’re being downvoted because that was clearly bad faith. Slavery doesn’t have group consensus among all involved, not even all non-slaves.
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
How’s freshman Intro. to Philisophy treatin’ ya?
benni@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Honest question: if a person living in the west in the 21st century thinks they should have the right to take people of a different race as their own personal slaves, do you think there is no basis to call this person immoral? The best we can do is say that this person is incompatible with the time and place they are in?
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
We in the west have a basis to call this person immoral.
The places where slavery is legal do not have that basis.
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This qualifier alone shows that “objective” moral truth is defined only by where/when you live. You’re also showing your own modern western bias here.