4 ms·

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

by 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.

by simias 7y ago

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.