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

  • Flying SquidM
    link
    09 months ago

    What is worse, blowing someone up on a battlefield or capturing them and sacrificing them later? I’d say the latter because the death is relatively quick and painless and included a soporific to calm the victim down. The latter was what the Aztecs did. Their wars were for capturing prisoners, not killing enemies. I don’t know… that sounds like their sacrifices are more moral than blowing someone’s legs off and letting them bleed out. I’d call the latter a lot more moral than the former. Because less suffering is good, right?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      39 months ago

      This is a very superficial view on the matter. You would have to consider all factors.

      Which practices lead to more trauma? To more future victims? What are the long-term consequences for the future? Does one decision lead to more suffering in humans 3000 years in the future for some reason? Etc. Objectively, one way is the better one. We just don’t know which one it is.

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        09 months ago

        Wait, now we don’t know what is objectively morally true?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          29 months ago

          I would say we can’t in most cases know exactly or even approximately what is the objectively morally better decision. But that doesn’t make it less objective. It just makes it hard or perhaps even impossible to know.

          • Flying SquidM
            link
            09 months ago

            How can you know it’s objective if it’s impossible to know what is morally better?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              29 months ago

              Because for something to be considered objective the only necessary condition is that how something is lies entirely with the object itself and not with the person(s) looking at it. Whether or not we can measure it in actuality doesn’t matter for that definition.

              Consider you could wire every existing person up to some kind of device that measures their physical and psychological pain and gives out a number, it doesn’t matter who looks at it, it would obviously always be the same number.

              • Flying SquidM
                link
                09 months ago

                You think everyone has the same levels of physical and psychological pain tolerance? Nonsense. I have trigeminal neuralgia. I’m would bet my pain tolerance is objectively a hell of a lot higher than yours at this point.

                  • Flying SquidM
                    link
                    09 months ago

                    I thought the device was a way to measure objective truths. How could they be objective if our numbers are different for the same type of pain generation?