3 ms·
> Thus "Moral relativism is a cancer, applied selectively by the lazy. Do better." is actually quite an ignorant statement that applies a specific moral lens to
by AllegedAlec 5y ago
> Thus "Moral relativism is a cancer, applied selectively by the lazy. Do better." is actually quite an ignorant statement that applies a specific moral lens to the entire world without acknowledging the lack of universality in ideals across humanity.
The existence of other frameworks of morality doesn't mean that there isn't one True Morality. It just means that some people act against it.
- azinman2 5y agoAnd that One True Morality is from the Enlightenment? Humans have existed a lot longer than the Enlightenment and battled with ideals of morality throughout the ages. To suggest that there's somehow a single philosophy that's correct is quite pompous.
- emptysongglass 5y agoNo living creature enjoys suffering therefore do no action of intent which causes suffering to any other living thing. That's the One True Morality and every person can measure it for themselves because all of us is directly connected to suffering. It's not pompous, it's reasonable, as in it's a deduction that anyone can make for themselves with the reason they have, applied to the vessel they were born with.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago> And that One True Morality is from the Enlightenment Probably not, because anything human will only be an approximation. It's probably a whole damn closer than the Chinese morality though. > To suggest that there's somehow a single philosophy that's correct is quite pompous. Why? In science we accept that there's one true way that any process can be described. Others might be entirely wrong (theory of Humors), or partially wrong, but useful (Newtonian physics). Why is the notion that there's on true moral framework so outlandish?
- mcguire 5y agoGreat! Which one is it?