Morality is often subjective. In some places it’s immoral for women to show skin or drive a car.
OP literally just posted a hot dog water opinion and is going to anyone who disagrees and saying “Nuh uh”
Almost like im baiting in a place designed specifically for baiting.
Nuh uh
Not true
Soo, you are blatantly denying a fact?
No, you are
Morality is subjective, and as a result moral condemnation carries no weight to anyone but those who already agree with the condemnation. Condemnation isn’t meant to directly change the behavior of those who disagree, it’s meant to spur those who agree into taking action to combat what they view as immoral.
Thats not true
Nuh uh.
it very much is.
take for example Trump. A man with little to no moral aptitude. He is unable to be held to moral constraints because he refuses to recognize moral integrity from society.
it would even be fair to say that he’s the perfect amoral individual that actively repels social morals and ethics.
Who?
I discovered at a very early age that if I talk long enough, I can make anything right or wrong. So either I’m God or truth is relative. In either case, booyah.
You’re God. Congratulations. You’re like that character in Nurse Jackie.
This post is rage bait, and I’m a rage fish.
Rage baiting in shitpost? I would NEVER
this is bait, and I’m hooked
Shut up, ugly ass
slow your roll. I’m a deontologist. I agree with Lisa. but I’m down to find all the fights I can in this comment section.
Does deontology pay well?
it’s not a career. it’s a theory of ethics
Apparently my comedy isn’t ready for the road, let alone a lemmy shitpost.
I’m a mechanical engineer, I’m having fun trying to explain black and white. The numbers Mason.
Unless you can prove objective morals exists, subjective morals are the only morals you are left with.
I proved it
Morality is objectively decided by the society you are apart of, rendering it subjective. If you say im wrong then ill play the nihilism card and say it doesnt matter in the end. Ill always win. Checkmate.
That by definition is subjective. You name anything that is ok in one society or even one area that is frowned upon in another that is subjective morality. For example as times have gotten harder and harder for younger people economically living with their parents in the Global West has become seen as more and more normal and not treating those adults as basement creatures or something.
leans in and whispers
Its all subjective
You’re wrong!
Well it doesnt matter in the end anyway
Homosexuality used to be objectively immoral and to some folks it still is. Morality is an arbitration based on our perceptions of harm, and changes over time. Jaywalking used to be the norm, but a rule was made against it to prevent harm as the world adapted to motor vehicles. The Nazi believed themselves to be morally correct in their actions. If morality is objective, then the threats to a healthy society would always be clear and accurate. Maybe. What do you think? I’m interested to know.
Morality is objectively what I think is good or bad at any given moment but other people are just to dumb to see it
At first I was gonna say, maybe morality isn’t subjective. Maybe its just our perception of morality that is, and that as an intelligence constrained by our meat, the subjectivity is just a naturally occuring conceptual filter construct that creates the illusion of subjectivity.
Then I realized, I should have just said “yeah”.
With apologies to Mitch Hedberg.
Would that go for art too? Like, if you claim that art is subjective, then is it hypocritical to state that something isn’t art?
Who?
Isn’t morality intersubjective?
No
All morality is subjective
False, there are objectively evil and immoral actions.
Honestly this is a pretty big topic in philosophy. It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
Some people believe that not going to church each week is amoral, but some atheists think organized religion is amoral - who is right?
You and I can agree that murder is immoral. Would that stance change if we were on the jury for a murder trial and, if found guilty, the offender would be sentenced to death? If that doesn’t make us murderers, what makes the death penalty an appropriate and moral punishment?
Simply replying “false” indicates little to no thought on the subject or its nuance, and gives off strong “I’m 13 and this is deep” vibes
It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
You can also jump straight to the top and argue it’s because the human experience itself is always subjective, since meat doesn’t seem to be very good at observing Reality. And then we get to cogito ergo sum and all that jazz
Reasonable person is a consistently used terminology in law. That is because objectivity can be achieved in certain circumstances. Say someone rapes, murders and necrophiles a person of any age. That is objectively an evil action in which any reasonable person would condem the perpetrator.
I think all of these actions are morally wrong but could you tell me how they are objective and not subjective? A reasonable person seems to be a person and consequently fundamentally subjective.
Wrong
The law is meant to be fair (which is a separate can of worms, but the goal is fairness). It is not meant to be moral, though it often follows what people generally consider to be moral, like don’t rape or murder people.
And, honestly, using the “reasonable person” argument here goes against your point - it indicates that people with different morals exist, and therefore morality must be subjective.
Gimme a minute I have to go to sleep. But, you’re obviously wrong.
Cool, sounds legit
The word you’re looking for is intersubjective
False
Then you’re using a private definition of the word objective that you can’t assume people will buy into
Prove it.
Rape in any form, murder of an innocent, intentional torture of an organism strictly to give the torturers gratification and jay walking. All good examples of objectively morally evil actions.
Evil is itself a subjective term. It is not possible for anything to be objectively evil, even if every person who has ever lived agrees - which they definitely don’t. To be “objective” it must be measurable, supported by facts; “good” and “evil” are not.
Thats not true
ducks
Gooses
Claiming morality is objective, requires a moral judgement for one rock falling on another and crushing it.
Can “it doesn’t matter” exist on a moral spectrum? I guess if you had an “objective moral framework” that has a tertiary category for “morally neutral” then can it morally judge one rock crushing another as “neutral” / “not my jurisdiction”?
oh, and if we had that framework and applied it to rocks and they didn’t object, could we then assume they’re cool with it, or at least ambivalent towards it?
It could be possible.
But what objective moral framework exists? One that doesn’t depend on any observer.Thats quantum philosophy. The duel think experiment. Thinkingergs cat and all that.
False, there are objectively evil and immoral actions.
You didn’t evaluate the morality of the rocks.
Rocks aren’t capable of morality, the only organisms capable of utilizing it are humans.
Then it’s not objective. It’s subjective to attributes of what’s involved.
Humans can only apply morality to other humans. It is an intrinsic individual law of order.
Which is exactly why it’s subjective.
If you mean subjective because humans are the only organism that can communicate and understand. You can’t apply moral laws to inanimate objects or non human. So subjective in the sense that only our species has it. But, objective in that every mentally well member of our species has the ability to objectively identify a moral evil.
