People Twitter

6443 readers

1496 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

850

An ethics professor at Cambridge talks about teaching ethics in 2025 (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

155 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's because there are 2 general schools of thought in ethics - relativism and absolutism. Relativism (the idea that morality is intrinsic to the person's experience and understanding) is the one that seems to be the most talked about in general society. I believe in absolutism, the idea that there is a set of guidelines for moral behavior regardless of your experiences or past.

Your example (more formally known as the paradox of tolerance) is what convinces me that absolutism is the better school of thought

[–] sloppychops@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

I can't help but be struck at how cowardly 'moral relativism' seems. Yes, you could potentially offend or step on someone's toes if you express moral outrage at the practice of childhood genital mutiliation, for example, but are you truly opposed if you are willing to contextualise said opposition? If you have a strong moral objection to something, then have a strong moral objection.

There are 8 billion people, and not all of them are going to or have to agree with you. There's absolutely no need to play the chameleon to keep everyone happy.

If your moral objection to something isn't universal, then it isn't an objection.