4 ms·

It rather matters to me if in your morality some people I care about are "problems". It matters to me if your morality is based on a religion specifically -- I

It rather matters to me if in your morality some people I care about are "problems". It matters to me if your morality is based on a religion specifically -- I find no reason to follow the worlds faiths, they seem much more concerned with control and/or prohibition of individual action than with fostering good societies or people. Being specific, I find the current incarnation of Christianity in the US to be particilarly immoral -- yet if we're going to start making law based on morality this is the most likely source to be applied where I live. So we disagree rather vehemently, except for "Whatever makes the most money for powerful people" is bad.

bluefirebrand 7mo ago
> It rather matters to me if in your morality some people I care about are "problems This would not be moral in any serious ethical framework Edit: Human equality is often one of the most important topics in Ethics. Why do you think so much effort is put into depicting Others as Inhuman?
- Henchman21 7mo ago
  > This would not be moral in any serious ethical framework We agree, but I'm not particularly talking about "serious ethical frameworks" I'm talking about the most likely scenario if we try to implement law based on morality. It will be a corrupted morality from the get-go. Hence me caring about whose morality. > Edit: Human equality is often one of the most important topics in Ethics. Why do you think so much effort is put into depicting Others as Inhuman? Because it takes so much to change minds to see others as inhuman? So let's distill this down: - You're saying law already has or should have a moral component -- we agree. - I'm saying that whose morality matters because humans will not apply morality evenly. We aren't perfect machines. We're run in part by our biases. - You're saying that isn't a serious ethical framework then. Agreed. - Finally I'm saying that if we choose to implement law from this point forward with a "new morality" -- that the "new morality" will already be corrupted by the people implementing it. It won't be a "serious ethical framework" -- it will be some watered down non-perfect version that privileges an in-group over an out-group, because humans do that stuff. So where do we go from here? Sounds like we devolved into a "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

bluefirebrand 7mo ago

> It rather matters to me if in your morality some people I care about are "problems This would not be moral in any serious ethical framework Edit: Human equality is often one of the most important topics in Ethics. Why do you think so much effort is put into depicting Others as Inhuman?

Henchman21 7mo ago
> This would not be moral in any serious ethical framework We agree, but I'm not particularly talking about "serious ethical frameworks" I'm talking about the most likely scenario if we try to implement law based on morality. It will be a corrupted morality from the get-go. Hence me caring about whose morality. > Edit: Human equality is often one of the most important topics in Ethics. Why do you think so much effort is put into depicting Others as Inhuman? Because it takes so much to change minds to see others as inhuman? So let's distill this down: - You're saying law already has or should have a moral component -- we agree. - I'm saying that whose morality matters because humans will not apply morality evenly. We aren't perfect machines. We're run in part by our biases. - You're saying that isn't a serious ethical framework then. Agreed. - Finally I'm saying that if we choose to implement law from this point forward with a "new morality" -- that the "new morality" will already be corrupted by the people implementing it. It won't be a "serious ethical framework" -- it will be some watered down non-perfect version that privileges an in-group over an out-group, because humans do that stuff. So where do we go from here? Sounds like we devolved into a "no true Scotsman" fallacy?