4 ms·
It depends on who defines morality, which invalidates the concept of a “universal” morality. If the definer of the morality decides that human lives are the mos
by plank_time 5y ago
It depends on who defines morality, which invalidates the concept of a “universal” morality. If the definer of the morality decides that human lives are the most important and it would be immoral to hold animals and plants above humans, it would produce a completely different end result.
Or they may determine that all you mention plus natural formations like lakes and mountains and rock formations deserve protection and equal protection.
That’s why this entire article is a waste of time to me.
- kodah 5y agoMy experience with morality is that it's definition varies from person to person even in like-groups. The illustration you and GP have painted is the same political struggle we've always had, just now painted inside morality instead of secular laws. It is wild to see secular people debating a new wave of American moralism, as if that time period wasn't bad enough the first go-around.
- plank_time 5y agoAgreed. There will always be people splitting hairs and vehemently thinking their views are “more correct” and “more morally correct”. That’s why I think this entire article is a waste of time. The idea of “universal morality” is fiction because everyone thinks differently. The best course of action is never to try to find a single “universal” truth but to accept a plurality of “truths”. That’s the only way we can survive as a species.