1y ago

Philosophy meme

Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy..blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

You're viewing a single thread.

272 comments

I believe in Objective Morality
If you are harming someone else without proper cause. You are doing evil.
- And "proper cause" is objective?
  
  Let me dumb it down for you a little bit. Objective morality exists, and the objective moral is simply to do no harm. You may harm another person, if that person is causing harm and you are trying to stop them. That is the only time causing harm is just.
  
  Ok but that requires some sort of objective way to sort out what's harmful and what isn't. And to what extent "harm" counts. And have an objective way to say who exactly was the one that caused the harm, who's the agent and who's not an agent. And to what exactly can justify harm. And what can even be harmed. That's just an impossible thing to do.
  It's definitions all the way down – you can't make anything like that "objective". All the words you use are subjective, all words have loose meanings that differ from person to person. "Doing harm" has no objective meaning.
  It's like trying to find objective beauty. There is no objective beauty, there is nothing that applies to everyone that says how beautiful they are. It's majority based on understandings gathered from culture and life experiences, which differ greatly from person to person. Morality is the same.
  What you described isn't "objective morality", it's the NAP. That's just a discount conservative philosophy.
  
  Did I harm you? No Then no harm was done
  
  Ok but one can use "harm" to mean whatever they want. It's not as simple as saying "harm = bad". Someone has to decide if something counts as harm, which would be completely subjective and arbitrarily decided.
  
  Okay, what's something one can do to another person that would be considered harm by some, but not by others?
  
  Simplest moral dilemma – trolley problem. Is it immoral to doom 1 person in order to save 4 people? Is it immoral to sacrifice any number of people, animals, etc. for some "greater good"? That's something a lot of people would argue about. And do you do something immoral if you don't take action at all on it?
  You can try to pick an answer and call it morally objective, but anyone who tries to do that is a joke.
  
  No it is clear as day, if killing one person saves 10... and doing nothing kills all 11, the choice is obvious.
  
  That's your morality. You can be Thanos all you want but it doesn't make it objectively moral.
  
  Never said anything about being Thanos
- Okay, but can you prove objectively that doing so is a "bad" thing? What even is the definition of "bad" in this context?
  
  Quite simple, if you harm someone who is not harming someone else, then you have done bad. It's that easy
  
  But why though? Why is "harming someone who is not harming someone else" equivalent to "done bad"? What universal constant says that this is the case?
  
  Because typically bad shit is only happened if harm has been done, and harm is only justifiable if it is harm intended to prevent further harm. Or to be more clear, the performance of a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil, is just
- People in this thread are so downvote heavy lmao.
  
  Right?

272 comments