Morality

You're viewing a single thread.

42 comments

Is it actually? As far as I'm aware, it doesn't really make any statements that anything is moral or immoral, nor is it a framework that could be used to determine such things by itself, more so a statement on the validity of such things. Or in other word, is it really a moral thesis, or is it a thesis about moral thesis?
- Yeah I don't understand the point the meme is trying to make
- You're on the right track here. It's a metaethical claim, not a moral one.
- You could argue that moral relativism is a metaethical thesis and so is not straight away self-defeating. Even so, moral relativists often go on to claim that we shouldn't judge the moral acts of other cultures based on what we take to be universal moral standards. Because, get this, it would be wrong to do so.
  
  I'm not smart enough to understand anything in this conversation, but "Metaethical" seems like it would be a good metal band name
  
  Followed by Postmetaethical when they lose a member
  
  This sounds like Goedels theorem. How could a philosophy be consistent and have an opinion about every moral topic?
  
  I'm not sure morality would have the same problems with recursion that math has.
  
  I'm not sure it's the SAME but if there were a system of created ethics that were able to speak to everything and do so consistently.... Wouldn't we know?
  
  Why would we? Ethics can be just as opaque as any other subject. It took us thousands of years to get economics, psychology, etc. to where they are.
  
  Yooo. You are onto something here.
  
  Is it that it's wrong or simply that it lacks proper context? Like if you're going to judge a culture you should learn the culture that seems obvious even without the arguments about morality

42 comments