5 ms·

We could even take an additional step on the path of honest communication and instead of "good" and "bad", say "things I like" and "things I dislike".

mfer 7y ago
Who decides what's good or bad? Who decides who decides? Where is the depth of knowledge, logic, and reason behind that? When it comes to good and bad we often lack these things and if we did I would wager we are not on the same page. "things I like" and "things I dislike" are far more honest and genuine.
- simias 7y ago
  How do you think a society could functions without a minimal set of shared values? Stuff like "killing each other is not super nice" and similar? Aren't values about "good" and "bad"? Unless you're talking from a purely nihilistic viewpoint which might be rational to some extent but not really productive. "Nothing matter, nothing is wrong, nothing is right, stuff just happens". Okay but where do we go from there?
  - moate 7y ago
    Values are about personal preference. "Killing each other is not super nice" isn't a value in any real way due to the dilution words you add. Take the following thoughts: Killing people is a bad thing. During wars, soldiers kill people. Soldiers are virtuous people. Do you believe/know that someone could think they believe all 3 of these things? If yes, what are their values? Everything is situations. It's context. It's why philosophers play with so many variances of the trolley problem. Nothing is clean and easy, everyone is a hypocrite, nothing matters, stuff happens, and trying to rule a group by trying to worry about individual beliefs instead of aggregate beliefs shared among a majority (a slight difference from your statement that I took as "minimal set of shared values" which I assumed you meant applied to literally everyone). Point is once you get a group above a certain size, there's only ever going to be majority favored ideas, not universally shared.
  - mfer 7y ago
    I agree that a society needs to have some shared values codified in laws. Things like not killing each other are great examples. But, are shared values the same as good and bad? We generally consider certain forms of lying to be bad but they are not illegal. And, not everyone agrees on those. So they aren't entirely shared. If we go down the rabbit hole of reason and logic on this it's not so simple.
simias 7y ago
That's not the same thing. I like ice cream but it's bad for me. I don't like having to pay for it but it's probably good for society that ice cream makers are rewarded for their work, at least if I want to be able to eat more in the future. The world would be a literal paradise if doing thing we like and doing good things were always one and the same thing. I don't see how you can discuss morality and ethics without "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong". IMO the problem with modern political discussion (especially online) isn't vocabulary, it's lack of nuance and empathy. "Good" and "bad" are not really the problem, but rather when you only classify things are either completely good or completely bad with no middle ground.
- BaronSamedi 7y ago
  You are using the word "bad" equivocally. Bad as in "bad for your health" is one thing (no problem with that), bad as in "eating ice cream is morally bad" is quite another. What would the claim that eating ice is morally bad even mean? All I'm suggesting is that we take care in our language and be up-front about subjectivity rather than mask it with objective-sounding reifications. This isn't an attack on morality nor its importance, rather it is an acknowledgment of the fact that such judgments are ultimately based on what we as individuals or as a society find acceptable or unacceptable (i.e., like or dislike). It is perfectly possible to have a strong sense of ethics without claiming that one's ethics are somehow objectively or empirically "true".
  - false-mirror 7y ago
    Moral relativism does not negate good/bad/right/wrong to the point that they are equivalent to "like" and "no like". That is a radical reduction, and removes the whole process of moral reasoning people use to live a moral life. There are plenty of examples where the "right" thing to do is not pleasant, it is not socially acceptable, etc because it is instead congruent with a greater ethical structure. Please check out some moral philosophy before throwing the whole field into a bin.
false-mirror 7y ago
Such a chillingly casual disregard for morality and ethics.

mfer 7y ago

Who decides what's good or bad? Who decides who decides? Where is the depth of knowledge, logic, and reason behind that? When it comes to good and bad we often lack these things and if we did I would wager we are not on the same page. "things I like" and "things I dislike" are far more honest and genuine.

simias 7y ago
How do you think a society could functions without a minimal set of shared values? Stuff like "killing each other is not super nice" and similar? Aren't values about "good" and "bad"? Unless you're talking from a purely nihilistic viewpoint which might be rational to some extent but not really productive. "Nothing matter, nothing is wrong, nothing is right, stuff just happens". Okay but where do we go from there?
- moate 7y ago
  Values are about personal preference. "Killing each other is not super nice" isn't a value in any real way due to the dilution words you add. Take the following thoughts: Killing people is a bad thing. During wars, soldiers kill people. Soldiers are virtuous people. Do you believe/know that someone could think they believe all 3 of these things? If yes, what are their values? Everything is situations. It's context. It's why philosophers play with so many variances of the trolley problem. Nothing is clean and easy, everyone is a hypocrite, nothing matters, stuff happens, and trying to rule a group by trying to worry about individual beliefs instead of aggregate beliefs shared among a majority (a slight difference from your statement that I took as "minimal set of shared values" which I assumed you meant applied to literally everyone). Point is once you get a group above a certain size, there's only ever going to be majority favored ideas, not universally shared.
- mfer 7y ago
  I agree that a society needs to have some shared values codified in laws. Things like not killing each other are great examples. But, are shared values the same as good and bad? We generally consider certain forms of lying to be bad but they are not illegal. And, not everyone agrees on those. So they aren't entirely shared. If we go down the rabbit hole of reason and logic on this it's not so simple.

simias 7y ago

That's not the same thing. I like ice cream but it's bad for me. I don't like having to pay for it but it's probably good for society that ice cream makers are rewarded for their work, at least if I want to be able to eat more in the future. The world would be a literal paradise if doing thing we like and doing good things were always one and the same thing. I don't see how you can discuss morality and ethics without "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong". IMO the problem with modern political discussion (especially online) isn't vocabulary, it's lack of nuance and empathy. "Good" and "bad" are not really the problem, but rather when you only classify things are either completely good or completely bad with no middle ground.

BaronSamedi 7y ago
You are using the word "bad" equivocally. Bad as in "bad for your health" is one thing (no problem with that), bad as in "eating ice cream is morally bad" is quite another. What would the claim that eating ice is morally bad even mean? All I'm suggesting is that we take care in our language and be up-front about subjectivity rather than mask it with objective-sounding reifications. This isn't an attack on morality nor its importance, rather it is an acknowledgment of the fact that such judgments are ultimately based on what we as individuals or as a society find acceptable or unacceptable (i.e., like or dislike). It is perfectly possible to have a strong sense of ethics without claiming that one's ethics are somehow objectively or empirically "true".
- false-mirror 7y ago
  Moral relativism does not negate good/bad/right/wrong to the point that they are equivalent to "like" and "no like". That is a radical reduction, and removes the whole process of moral reasoning people use to live a moral life. There are plenty of examples where the "right" thing to do is not pleasant, it is not socially acceptable, etc because it is instead congruent with a greater ethical structure. Please check out some moral philosophy before throwing the whole field into a bin.

false-mirror 7y ago

Such a chillingly casual disregard for morality and ethics.