3 ms·

> Whatever way future generations see some things, they would still be bad. That's too absolute for a concept so relative. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

> Whatever way future generations see some things, they would still be bad. That's too absolute for a concept so relative. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Imagine equal right for all people, a concept past generations would have discarded and lunacy. Someone 200 or 2000 years ago might have said "whatever any future generation might say about equality it will still be bad".

coldtea 8y ago
>Someone 200 or 2000 years ago might have said "whatever any future generation might say about equality it will still be bad". Well, the only way your example works is if you ascribe to what I said. Because you imply that those persons were wrong -- and thus that "equal rights for all people" is the correct choice. Not just for now, but for then too -- they just didn't know it. That's kind of what I'm saying too. I can't guarantee that anybody's morals are valid. Or that they will be considered valid in the future. I just say that we shouldn't relativistically lax our morals just because "the future might think differently on this matter". That's the future's problem. Except if its some trivial matter. Some stuff we should consider bad for the ages, even if the ages disagree with us. To answer the dead comment below: "Homosexuality was considered bad 2 generations ago, are [y]ou saying it should have been fought tooth and nail then?" No, I'm not saying this or that particular moral is wrong or that this or that period got it right. Just that it can't be trivially dismissed because it might change or have changed in the past. Obviously one could just as easily reverse the question: "are you saying it was correct for them to consider homosexuality bad 2 generations ago just because those were the morals of their day?". If you say "no, it was bad then too", then you got to my point. Morality might be changing over time, but we should not merely "adapt to the times" but go with what we really think is the best moral option for all ages.
- close04 8y ago
  I just used the example as "whatever you think, it's relative". And it's relative to what society around your time period belies as a whole. So whatever society believes today it's "perfectly correct" by virtue of this relativity. I don't expect this should change based on some hypothetical future. But opening the door to such morally or ethically questionable endeavors usually has to be done when they are still considered as such, questionable. So what I'm saying is that this might be deeply disturbing today but maybe that's how it should be so something good can come out of it in the future. I know, it's purely philosophical.

coldtea 8y ago

>Someone 200 or 2000 years ago might have said "whatever any future generation might say about equality it will still be bad". Well, the only way your example works is if you ascribe to what I said. Because you imply that those persons were wrong -- and thus that "equal rights for all people" is the correct choice. Not just for now, but for then too -- they just didn't know it. That's kind of what I'm saying too. I can't guarantee that anybody's morals are valid. Or that they will be considered valid in the future. I just say that we shouldn't relativistically lax our morals just because "the future might think differently on this matter". That's the future's problem. Except if its some trivial matter. Some stuff we should consider bad for the ages, even if the ages disagree with us. To answer the dead comment below: "Homosexuality was considered bad 2 generations ago, are [y]ou saying it should have been fought tooth and nail then?" No, I'm not saying this or that particular moral is wrong or that this or that period got it right. Just that it can't be trivially dismissed because it might change or have changed in the past. Obviously one could just as easily reverse the question: "are you saying it was correct for them to consider homosexuality bad 2 generations ago just because those were the morals of their day?". If you say "no, it was bad then too", then you got to my point. Morality might be changing over time, but we should not merely "adapt to the times" but go with what we really think is the best moral option for all ages.

close04 8y ago
I just used the example as "whatever you think, it's relative". And it's relative to what society around your time period belies as a whole. So whatever society believes today it's "perfectly correct" by virtue of this relativity. I don't expect this should change based on some hypothetical future. But opening the door to such morally or ethically questionable endeavors usually has to be done when they are still considered as such, questionable. So what I'm saying is that this might be deeply disturbing today but maybe that's how it should be so something good can come out of it in the future. I know, it's purely philosophical.