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

  • @BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    3•1 year ago

    Well, that’s the tricky part. There isn’t much in the way of empirical measurements for morality, which is why it tends to be so varied. But truth being difficult to find doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There is still right and wrong.

    As another user here put it, “Moral judgement is subjective. Moral truth is not.”

    • Kalash
      11•1 year ago

      I don’t see the tricky part. If it can’t be empirically measured, it’s not objective.

      So to put it correctly:

      “Moral judgement is subjective. Moral truth is too.”

              • @BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                1•1 year ago

                Any two contradictory moral statements cannot both be true. Implying that morality is subjective would imply that they can.

                For example: “being gay is wrong” and “being gay is not wrong”

                Both cannot be true. One is right, one is wrong. This is objective. You can extrapolate this to every other moral stance. No two opposing ideas can both be true.

                Therefore, if you were to extrapolate this to every moral stance, there would have to be a right and wrong statement for every one.

                Morality is objective. Judgement is subjective, but judgement can be wrong.

                • Kalash
                  8•1 year ago

                  For example: “being gay is wrong” and “being gay is not wrong”

                  Both cannot be true. One is right, one is wrong. This is objective

                  Ok, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what “objective” means. Neither of these statements is true.

                  Objective means, something can be confirmed by observation. For example if we were in a room and there would be a rock on the table and you say “there is a rock on the table” that would be true. And everyone else in the world could look into the room and observe for them themselves that the rock is infact sitting on the table. That’s objective truth.

                  However if you said “this rock is ugly”, that is not objective. Differnet people will have different opinion on the prettiness of the rock, because it’s an inherently subjective quality. There is not “true” value for the rock’s prettiness that can be observed.

                  The same goes for all moral judgements. You can not observe or meassure a moral quality objetivily because it’s a value that is assigned by the judgment of a human brain. It’s not an intrinsic quality of nature.

                  • @BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                    2•1 year ago

                    You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what “objective” means.

                    Objective (adj.)

                    1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

                    2. not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

                    In other words: real, true, or factual

                    There is such a thing as objective morality, or moral truth.

                    Inability to determine what that is does not make it any less real.