4 ms·
> What constitutes well-being is open to debate > actions that decrease a creatures well-being can be thought of as objectively wrong Which results in the "ri
by mrshadowgoose 4y ago
> What constitutes well-being is open to debate
> actions that decrease a creatures well-being can be thought of as objectively wrong
Which results in the "rightness" and "wrongness" of those actions being open to debate, and therefore subjective.
> I base my morality on the well-being of conscious creatures.
Same as my moral compass. But I don't pretend that my definition of "well-being" is objectively correct and universal.
- d-z-m 4y ago> Which results in the "rightness" and "wrongness" of those actions being open to debate, and therefore subjective. Poor choice of words by me...what I meant to say is that the full scope of human well-being is not yet known. Whatever it ultimately _is_ isn't open to debate, as whatever constitutes well-being will be facts about how the human organism can either flourish or fail to flourish. If you can admit that a universe where every conscious being suffers as much as it possibly can for as long as it possibly can is bad, then the morality conversation can get off the ground. If the word "bad" is going to mean anything, it applies there. Those who want compulsory veiling and it's associated punishments are _wrong_ to want it. I contend that this is true independent of culture.