52 ms·
> My assertion is that we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong. Such that that is the wrong argument to use here. I'm not sure I'm follow
by xpe 5y ago
> My assertion is that we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong. Such that that is the wrong argument to use here.
I'm not sure I'm following how your comments got here. Do you intend to make the above broad assertion ("we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong")? To put it another way, are you arguing in favor of moral relativism?
- taeric 5y agoSorry. I'm fine accepting that some things are wrong. I specifically meant the examples in question here. So, I did not mean that we shouldn't accept that any things are wrong. I do think we should be very picky on the things we accept as wrong, in and of themselves.
- xpe 5y ago> I do think we should be very picky on the things we accept as wrong, in and of themselves. An interesting point. Many of these assessments are arguably subconscious and/or inculcated. Some philosophies aspire to as few fundamental guiding principles as possible. Such a structure tends to improve self-consistency. Other philosophies allow a broader mix of principles, sometimes in tension, which require considerable subjective discussion to untangle. Perhaps one could say these philosophies value human discussion as a core principle from which meaning is constructed.
- taeric 5y agoI am not up to date on philosophies. What little I have learned over the years has waned in my mind such that I don't trust I have it right. That said "these philosophies value human discussion as a core principal" really resonates with me. I don't like policies that are designed to be enforced without the people involved interacting with each other in some form. Again, yes there are some straw men that we should burn down when they appear, but I have a hard time with policies pushed in a "zero tolerance" fashion.