3 ms·

I was suggesting that the difference between the word "murder" and the word "killing" is demonstrative of the sort of broad thinking that allows people to say

by lsc 11y ago

I was suggesting that the difference between the word "murder" and the word "killing" is demonstrative of the sort of broad thinking that allows people to say that there is a set of ethics that is universally believed.

Retra 11y ago
Many of the things that make killing murder are sufficient for universal ethical principles. That is, there are things that are universally true within every rational, coherent ethical framework. This doesn't mean everybody knows about them, agrees to them, or even believes in them. So this: >people to say that there is a set of ethics that is universally believed. ...is absurd. There is nothing that is universally believed. That's because people can be wrong about facts. That doesn't mean there are no facts.
- lsc 11y ago
  And? We were talking about commonly held ethical or moral beliefs. Not what "true morals" or "true ethics" are. I quote those, but I don't reject the idea that there are true morals or true ethics that exist outside of your opinion and my opinion. It certainly feels right that there is a truth somewhere that is bigger than my ego. I'm just pointing out that you can't use general agreement across time and culture as evidence for said external, objective true ethics, because such an agreement doesn't exist in a meaningful way.
  - Retra 11y ago
    It exists in a meaningful way, just as an approximation. Like how the concept of "tree" is meaningful in spite of the fact that every single plant on this planet is unique.
    - lsc 11y ago
      When a significant number of people think that killing someone for blasphemy is a just thing to do? when a significant number of people a few centuries back thought that humans could be property? I'd compare this to finding a civilization that used the word "tree" to refer to Volkswagens. Yeah, I'm going to say that there isn't a meaningful agreement on ethics or morals across culture and time. This idea of an external set of ethics; an external morality that is "right" regardless of human opinion is a universal-ish concept, as far as I can tell, it's agreement on what those universal ethics are where there is disagreement.

by lsc 11y ago

Retra 11y ago

Many of the things that make killing murder are sufficient for universal ethical principles. That is, there are things that are universally true within every rational, coherent ethical framework. This doesn't mean everybody knows about them, agrees to them, or even believes in them. So this: >people to say that there is a set of ethics that is universally believed. ...is absurd. There is nothing that is universally believed. That's because people can be wrong about facts. That doesn't mean there are no facts.

lsc 11y ago
And? We were talking about commonly held ethical or moral beliefs. Not what "true morals" or "true ethics" are. I quote those, but I don't reject the idea that there are true morals or true ethics that exist outside of your opinion and my opinion. It certainly feels right that there is a truth somewhere that is bigger than my ego. I'm just pointing out that you can't use general agreement across time and culture as evidence for said external, objective true ethics, because such an agreement doesn't exist in a meaningful way.
- Retra 11y ago
  It exists in a meaningful way, just as an approximation. Like how the concept of "tree" is meaningful in spite of the fact that every single plant on this planet is unique.
  - lsc 11y ago
    When a significant number of people think that killing someone for blasphemy is a just thing to do? when a significant number of people a few centuries back thought that humans could be property? I'd compare this to finding a civilization that used the word "tree" to refer to Volkswagens. Yeah, I'm going to say that there isn't a meaningful agreement on ethics or morals across culture and time. This idea of an external set of ethics; an external morality that is "right" regardless of human opinion is a universal-ish concept, as far as I can tell, it's agreement on what those universal ethics are where there is disagreement.