Yes, I know what objective means. What makes their morals untrue and yours true?
Comment on Philosophy meme
Wogi@lemmy.world 11 months agoBecause you seem to misunderstand what objective means, the other user is attempting to help you understand that with an unrelated example.
Objective means something is true. It does not mean consensus.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
mindrover@lemm.ee 11 months ago
That’s the next step. Once we agree that someone is right and someone is wrong, then we can start talking about the definition of “moral good”. And that is a very difficult and complicated discussion. But just because it’s hard to define doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not real.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
We don’t agree.
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 11 months ago
You could for example take an utilitarian approach and then the objectively better decision would be the decision that leads to less suffering in total.
Simply because it is practically impossible for us humans to calculate the “total of suffering”, doesn’t mean this total does not exist. It objectively does exist for every given decision. Perhaps there are exceptions where there is equal suffering for all decisions. But that still wouldn’t make it a subjective observation.
Arguably, the Aztec had an even bigger lack of information. For example by assuming that human sacrifices are a necessity. Or that women don’t suffer when they are treated as lesser.
Suffering is an objectively “real” thing in our universe. Unless you also want to debate whether pain or the human existence is real.
This seems like an axiom of ethics: less suffering is good. Because why would more suffering be good?
This seems like it leaves us with the option to either decide actively against what is good, or make decisions randomly. Random would be if you don’t consider whether a decision increases or decreases suffering / well-being. I am a total lay person for philosophy but this almost makes it seem like it’s a logical fallacy to assume ethics (on a base level) are subjective. We almost must assume something to make a decision. And your decision always leads to an increase or decrease in suffering. Therefore all decisions are on an objective scale of mortality…?
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 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?
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 11 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.
FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 11 months ago
What would it mean for a moral to be true?
Like we can prove the earth goes around the sun but how would you prove a moral value to be true?