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

  • @force
    link
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • @force
        link
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Queen HawlSera
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Okay, what’s something one can do to another person that would be considered harm by some, but not by others?

          • @force
            link
            0
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Queen HawlSera
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              No it is clear as day, if killing one person saves 10… and doing nothing kills all 11, the choice is obvious.

              • @force
                link
                01 year ago

                That’s your morality. You can be Thanos all you want but it doesn’t make it objectively moral.