4 ms·

>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 ba

>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
> 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. Similarly my belief that "good" and "bad" are absolute rather than relative doesn't mean that I think I can flawlessly categorize actions correctly, and where reasonable people disagree with me, it's a signal I should reflect on my reasons for why I differ and if I'm wrong. I think we share a similar distaste (for lack of a better word) for anyone who thinks they are 100% right. Unless you disagree, I think we've mined all we can from the medium of HN comments. Thanks for the discussion, I've not ever had the chance to discuss these points with someone who ascribes to any firm form of moral relativism before.