3 ms·

>Morals are how one ought to behave, and how one ought to behave can intersect with cultural and personal values, but is not determined by cultural and personal

>Morals are how one ought to behave, and how one ought to behave can intersect with cultural and personal values, but is not determined by cultural and personal values. There are plenty of people who believe this, that their morals are absolute, and you can refer to the Spanish Inquisition to see exactly how "evil" that kind of thinking can get. Moral relativists are saints compared to what the Catholics have done in the name of "morality". All religious fanatics agree that morals are absolute, they just don't agree on what those morals are. Also, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how you quantify and qualify "merits" is based upon personal/cultural values. If you don't realize this you'll just argue endlessly with people over whose perspective is correct, not realizing you're both just viewing things through your own biases. To me, "good morals" are trying to understand and empathize with other people, while allowing them their own unique perspective.

aidenn0 6y ago
> Also, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how you quantify and qualify "merits" is based upon personal/cultural values. If you don't realize this you'll just argue endlessly with people over whose perspective is correct, not realizing you're both just viewing things through your own biases. Actually I completely agree with this. The fact that I have biases and you have biases will cause us to both be wrong. It doesn't mean that we are equally wrong though. > To me, "good morals" are trying to understand and empathize with other people, while allowing them their own unique perspective. That's a moral absolutist position.
- calibas 6y ago
  >That's a moral absolutist position. It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow. I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    >> That's a moral absolutist position. > It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow. > I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism. So is "moral absolutism is bad" the only universal moral truth?
    - calibas 6y ago
      Yes, you clever person, you caught me! I'm just a hypocrite who believes moral absolutism is objectively evil, in complete opposition to what I've been saying so far! Or maybe I believe it's dangerous because of what I've seen and experienced, but I don't believe it's objectively bad because that would be extremely silly. No, it's not bad and you're not bad, I just don't agree, I just don't see things the same way.
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        Perhaps we are just using different terminologies, but I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad. Like "I believe it's dangerous to launch nuclear warheads at people, but it's not objectively bad and I can't say you're a bad person for doing it?"
        calibas 6y ago
        >I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad. Driving a car is inherently dangerous, yet I certainly wouldn't call it objectively bad. There's aspects of driving that are "good" and aspects that are "bad" but it's really a mix. Concrete philosophical definitions of "good" and "bad" don't really apply to real life. Even the "number one" moral law, don't kill other people, quickly breaks down and society has added a very long list of conditions. Understanding that my morals are relative doesn't mean I have no concept of "good" and "bad". It means I have my own concepts while understanding that yours may be different.

aidenn0 6y ago

> Also, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how you quantify and qualify "merits" is based upon personal/cultural values. If you don't realize this you'll just argue endlessly with people over whose perspective is correct, not realizing you're both just viewing things through your own biases. Actually I completely agree with this. The fact that I have biases and you have biases will cause us to both be wrong. It doesn't mean that we are equally wrong though. > To me, "good morals" are trying to understand and empathize with other people, while allowing them their own unique perspective. That's a moral absolutist position.

calibas 6y ago
>That's a moral absolutist position. It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow. I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  >> That's a moral absolutist position. > It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow. > I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism. So is "moral absolutism is bad" the only universal moral truth?
  - calibas 6y ago
    Yes, you clever person, you caught me! I'm just a hypocrite who believes moral absolutism is objectively evil, in complete opposition to what I've been saying so far! Or maybe I believe it's dangerous because of what I've seen and experienced, but I don't believe it's objectively bad because that would be extremely silly. No, it's not bad and you're not bad, I just don't agree, I just don't see things the same way.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      Perhaps we are just using different terminologies, but I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad. Like "I believe it's dangerous to launch nuclear warheads at people, but it's not objectively bad and I can't say you're a bad person for doing it?"
      - calibas 6y ago
        >I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad. Driving a car is inherently dangerous, yet I certainly wouldn't call it objectively bad. There's aspects of driving that are "good" and aspects that are "bad" but it's really a mix. Concrete philosophical definitions of "good" and "bad" don't really apply to real life. Even the "number one" moral law, don't kill other people, quickly breaks down and society has added a very long list of conditions. Understanding that my morals are relative doesn't mean I have no concept of "good" and "bad". It means I have my own concepts while understanding that yours may be different.