3 ms·
I think OP was talking about real morality, not perceived.
by newswasboring 2y ago
I think OP was talking about real morality, not perceived.
- EnigmaFlare 2y agoThere's no such thing. All actions have consequences for other people, so any system of morality includes trade-offs where someone is disadvantaged for the sake of someone else.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- croes 2y agoWhat is real morality? How do you distinguish it from perceived morality? There is no ultimate right or wrong, it's all perception.
- newswasboring 2y agoI have written and deleted a few responses to this. Mostly because all of them turned out rageful, these kind of statements are in themselves harmful. If you only assign value to things which have inherent value then what's the point of society or civilization. Some things don't have to be laws of nature for us to treat them as such. If the only thing you recognize as valuable are things which are inherently valuable then none of any society works.
- croes 2y ago>If the only thing you recognize as valuable are things which are inherently valuable then none of any society works. Moral and value are both subjective. I doubt there is a single value that all people share across the world and time. So it's always about perceived morality at a certain place and time.