3 ms·

Interpreting the statement charitably, I think they mean "morality and ethics are arbitrary constructs of humankind, not the deep universal principles they are

Interpreting the statement charitably, I think they mean "morality and ethics are arbitrary constructs of humankind, not the deep universal principles they are sometimes taken to be".

dmd 2y ago
But that's so obviously a straw man. Obviously nobody believes that.
- asib 2y ago
  Could you elaborate? There are people that don't subscribe to moral or ethical absolutism.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    Or objectivism, which is the nice one. It's rejecting absolutism that drives people into the arms of relativism.
- card_zero 2y ago
  What a lovely thought.
- mjw_byrne 2y ago
  What exactly are you saying nobody believes? Moral absolutists, moral relativists and moral nihilists all exist.
raitx 2y ago
They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative. I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.
- mjw_byrne 2y ago
  I think statements of the form "X is immoral" are just secular versions of "X is against God's will", in the sense that they (not necessarily intentionally) use linguistic trickery to present a personal preference as a universal rule. If I am against something I can say "I am against X"; making statements about oneself is generally safe and not an overstep. There's no obvious path from "I am against X" to "I will stop you doing X". If I say "X is wrong", that sounds like an absolute, and is more easily (ab)used as a justification for stopping others doing it. The exact same linguistic distinction applies to offence. "I am offended by X" is accurate and works fine in a society. "X is offensive" is a precursor to censorship.

Interpreting the statement charitably, I think they mean "morality and ethics are arbitrary constructs of humankind, not the deep universal principles they are sometimes taken to be".

dmd 2y ago

But that's so obviously a straw man. Obviously nobody believes that.

asib 2y ago
Could you elaborate? There are people that don't subscribe to moral or ethical absolutism.
- card_zero 2y ago
  Or objectivism, which is the nice one. It's rejecting absolutism that drives people into the arms of relativism.
card_zero 2y ago
What a lovely thought.
mjw_byrne 2y ago
What exactly are you saying nobody believes? Moral absolutists, moral relativists and moral nihilists all exist.

raitx 2y ago

They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative. I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.

mjw_byrne 2y ago
I think statements of the form "X is immoral" are just secular versions of "X is against God's will", in the sense that they (not necessarily intentionally) use linguistic trickery to present a personal preference as a universal rule. If I am against something I can say "I am against X"; making statements about oneself is generally safe and not an overstep. There's no obvious path from "I am against X" to "I will stop you doing X". If I say "X is wrong", that sounds like an absolute, and is more easily (ab)used as a justification for stopping others doing it. The exact same linguistic distinction applies to offence. "I am offended by X" is accurate and works fine in a society. "X is offensive" is a precursor to censorship.