I discovered at a very early age that if I talk long enough, I can make anything right or wrong. So either I’m God or truth is relative. In either case, booy
Dumb stance
Submitted 1 day ago by Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f25b689-b28b-425e-a3e8-5195c1f5df4b.jpeg
Comments
yermaw@sh.itjust.works 3 hours ago
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
This post is rage bait, and I’m a rage fish.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Rage baiting in shitpost? I would NEVER
nsrxn@mstdn.social 1 day ago
this is bait, and I'm hooked
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Shut up, ugly ass
nsrxn@mstdn.social 1 day ago
slow your roll. I'm a deontologist. I agree with Lisa. but I'm down to find all the fights I can in this comment section.
OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Morality is objectively decided by the society you are apart of, rendering it subjective. If you say im wrong then ill play the nihilism card and say it doesnt matter in the end. Ill always win. Checkmate.
janewaydidnothingwrong@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
You’re wrong!
OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Well it doesnt matter in the end anyway
gezero@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Unless you can prove objective morals exists, subjective morals are the only morals you are left with.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
I proved it
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It carries precisely the weight it indicates regardless.
When someone says “that’s a horrible/evil thing you’ve done!” They are expressing that you have done something they think is immoral.
How you let that weight impact you depends on you and your ability or inability to control your response to it.
ChetManly@lemmy.world 1 day ago
All morality is subjective
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day ago
False
paranoid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Honestly this is a pretty big topic in philosophy. It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
Some people believe that not going to church each week is amoral, but some atheists think organized religion is amoral - who is right?
You and I can agree that murder is immoral. Would that stance change if we were on the jury for a murder trial and, if found guilty, the offender would be sentenced to death? If that doesn’t make us murderers, what makes the death penalty an appropriate and moral punishment?
Simply replying “false” indicates little to no thought on the subject or its nuance, and gives off strong “I’m 13 and this is deep” vibes
MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The word your looking for is intersubjective
randomdeadguy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Homosexuality used to be objectively immoral and to some folks it still is. Morality is an arbitration based on our perceptions of harm, and changes over time. Jaywalking used to be the norm, but a rule was made against it to prevent harm as the world adapted to motor vehicles. The Nazi believed themselves to be morally correct in their actions. If morality is objective, then the threats to a healthy society would always be clear and accurate. Maybe. What do you think? I’m interested to know.
s@piefed.world 1 day ago
Morality is objectively what I think is good or bad at any given moment but other people are just to dumb to see it
harmbugler@piefed.social 22 hours ago
Your moral condemnation carries the same weight, regardless of your view.
A thought experiment: reveal your claim after your condemnation. Can the weight change? What was the weight before the claim was revealed?
Steve@communick.news 1 day ago
Claiming morality is objective, requires a moral judgement for one rock falling on another and crushing it.
_stranger_@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Can “it doesn’t matter” exist on a moral spectrum? I guess if you had an “objective moral framework” that has a tertiary category for “morally neutral” then can it morally judge one rock crushing another as “neutral” / “not my jurisdiction”?
Steve@communick.news 23 hours ago
It could be possible.
But what objective moral framework exists? One that doesn’t depend on any observer.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day ago
False, there are objectively evil and immoral actions.
Steve@communick.news 1 day ago
You didn’t evaluate the morality of the rocks.
gigastasio@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Would that go for art too? Like, if you claim that art is subjective, then is it hypocritical to state that something isn’t art?
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 1 day ago
TL/DR - yes. Hell ues even.
What is art or what is good art?
One of my fav definitions of art is "that which was created with the primary intention of invoking an emotional response in the observing subject.
Some would say art that art which provokes positive or negative emotions is good art, even if it was intended to be positive. The more powerful the emotional response the better the art. So the Brandenburg Concertos are potentially on the same level of art as say Tiny Tims Tiptoe through the tulips, or Rebecca Black’s Friday. As music they are all galaxies apart, but as art. Strong emotions.
Other would say good art provokes strong intended emotions. Like a performance piece about domestic violence is supposed to make you feel strong andger and revulsion. To these same “intentionists” if you found the same piece triggers a dark humour reponse and you lol, it’s bad art because it didn’t demonstrate mastery of emotional provocation. I could go on, but why.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Who?
dlsloop@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Exactly. It only carries weight if you believe it carries weight or if there are laws/punishments behind it.
5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org 1 day ago
Isn’t morality intersubjective?
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
No
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 1 day ago
At first I was gonna say, maybe morality isn’t subjective. Maybe its just our perception of morality that is, and that as an intelligence constrained by our meat, the subjectivity is just a naturally occuring yet conceptual filter construct that creates the illusion of subjectivity.
Then I realized, I should have just said “yeah”.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
That’s why I don’t argue on moral grounds unless I can guarantee shared morals
minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s morality itself that has the weight, not any particular moral.
vathecka@lemmy.radio 1 day ago
Utilitarianism is ontologically correct
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Agreed. STFU Lisa
Signtist@bookwyr.me 5 hours ago
Morality is subjective, and as a result moral condemnation carries no weight to anyone but those who already agree with the condemnation. Condemnation isn’t meant to directly change the behavior of those who disagree, it’s meant to spur those who agree into taking action to combat what they view as immoral.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Thats not true
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
it very much is.
take for example Trump. A man with little to no moral aptitude. He is unable to be held to moral constraints because he refuses to recognize moral integrity from society.
it would even be fair to say that he’s the perfect amoral individual that actively repels social morals and ethics.
Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 hours ago
In what way?