2 ms·

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 qu

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.