Morality is often subjective. In some places it’s immoral for women to show skin or drive a car.
OP literally just posted a hot dog water opinion and is going to anyone who disagrees and saying “Nuh uh”
Nuh uh
Not true
Soo, you are blatantly denying a fact?
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.
Thats not true
Nuh uh.
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.
Who?
In what way?
Yes, but we’re also undervaluing the power of the people who voice their disapproval and the ripple effect it has on other people. What matters, in the end, is the public perception when it determines the type of treatment you get. Do you really want to feel uncomfortable around others regularly?
E: I know it’s a shitpost, but let me cook. I’m having thoughts. uwu
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, booyah.
This post is rage bait, and I’m a rage fish.
Rage baiting in shitpost? I would NEVER
this is bait, and I’m hooked
Shut up, ugly ass
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.
Does deontology pay well?
it’s not a career. it’s a theory of ethics
Apparently my comedy isn’t ready for the road, let alone a lemmy shitpost.
I’m just a practiced straight man. you gotta practice clowning on a fool
Straight man? Im a bisuxual woman!!
I’m just gonna go home and rethink my life.
I chuckled. If I heard that in a club, I’d probably chuckle and then feel bad for both of us.
Not for a club. More like a scene in a group discussion in Schitts Creek or Arrested Development.
I’m a mechanical engineer, I’m having fun trying to explain black and white. The numbers Mason.
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.
That by definition is subjective. You name anything that is ok in one society or even one area that is frowned upon in another that is subjective morality. For example as times have gotten harder and harder for younger people economically living with their parents in the Global West has become seen as more and more normal and not treating those adults as basement creatures or something.
leans in and whispers
Its all subjective
You’re wrong!
Well it doesnt matter in the end anyway
deleted by creator
Unless you can prove objective morals exists, subjective morals are the only morals you are left with.
I proved it
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.
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.
All morality is subjective
False, there are objectively evil and immoral actions.
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
It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
You can also jump straight to the top and argue it’s because the human experience itself is always subjective, since meat doesn’t seem to be very good at observing Reality. And then we get to cogito ergo sum and all that jazz
Reasonable person is a consistently used terminology in law. That is because objectivity can be achieved in certain circumstances. Say someone rapes, murders and necrophiles a person of any age. That is objectively an evil action in which any reasonable person would condem the perpetrator.
I think all of these actions are morally wrong but could you tell me how they are objective and not subjective? A reasonable person seems to be a person and consequently fundamentally subjective.
The law is meant to be fair (which is a separate can of worms, but the goal is fairness). It is not meant to be moral, though it often follows what people generally consider to be moral, like don’t rape or murder people.
And, honestly, using the “reasonable person” argument here goes against your point - it indicates that people with different morals exist, and therefore morality must be subjective.
Gimme a minute I have to go to sleep. But, you’re obviously wrong.
Cool, sounds legit
Who decides what a reasonable person is? Well a reasonable person, obviously.
The word you’re looking for is intersubjective
False
Then you’re using a private definition of the word objective that you can’t assume people will buy into
Prove it.
Rape in any form, murder of an innocent, intentional torture of an organism strictly to give the torturers gratification and jay walking. All good examples of objectively morally evil actions.
But in the eyes of the one committing these crimes they may fully believe they are justified. There are people out there who have minds that are biologically different than the majority. These people may lack empathy or even find joy in hurting others and see no moral issue with it. Who is to definitively say that they are wrong? You would have to believe in a god or follow a religion of some kind for this argument to be sound. And there is plenty of evidence against the existence of a god(s).
ducks
Gooses
Morality is objectively what I think is good or bad at any given moment but other people are just to dumb to see it
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?
Claiming morality is objective, requires a moral judgement for one rock falling on another and crushing it.
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”?
oh, and if we had that framework and applied it to rocks and they didn’t object, could we then assume they’re cool with it, or at least ambivalent towards it?
It could be possible.
But what objective moral framework exists? One that doesn’t depend on any observer.Thats quantum philosophy. The duel think experiment. Thinkingergs cat and all that.
False, there are objectively evil and immoral actions.
You didn’t evaluate the morality of the rocks.
Rocks aren’t capable of morality, the only organisms capable of it are humans.
Then it’s not objective. It’s subjective to attributes of what’s involved.
Humans can only apply morality to other humans. It is an intrinsic individual law of order.
Which is exactly why it’s subjective.
If you mean subjective because humans are the only organism that can communicate and understand. You can’t apply moral laws to inanimate objects or non human. So subjective in the sense that only our species has it. But, objective in that every mentally well member of our species has the ability to objectively identify a moral evil.
