I don't see the contradiction here. Right Person is just asking what Left Person's beliefs on those matters are, not whether they believe those beliefs are objective.

Shit meme, so apt for the community, I guess. Patrick represents a guy stating his own morality, which doesn't oppose the final sentence, meaning this meme doesn't follow the expected format nor does it have a point whatsoever.

This doesn't prove anything? I mean... There are people who don't think women should vote, or that slavery was good...

Patrick's last sentence is still consistent with everything that he said above. He expressed HIS opinion and HIS morals above.

No ethical framework can be truly objective. This is because there is no universal constant that backs any ethical framework. We need universal constants to verify an objective statement. For example, the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. Also it is measureable. How do you measure the permissibility of an action? We do not know.

In conclusion, Patrick was right when he implied that there was no objectivity in ethics.

This is no conclusion. You can call it objective. All moral is based on subjectiveness: Different people have different morals. Especially ideology can have different morals. For example Nazism has a morality that the (in the eyes of the ruling party) "weak" kin should be exterminated and the "strong" kin should spread more and survive.

This is a moral standpoint, and because objects like "good" and "bad" are based on moral, the political correctness of the moral is subjective.

In ideology there is no right and wrong if you have no premises and no moral yourself, so to speak, if you're really objective.

Calling something objective is in truth just reactionistic.

But of course I think that in any debate there should be moral premises, like for example a democratic parlament should always have the premise: "for the people".

In reality it's quite different sadly.

Of course different people again have different understandings on what makes everyone in a democratic society happy, but for example right wing parties that praise capitalism or fascism there are definitely people that would gain from that.

Capitalism has the consequence that the rich get richer, and so to not devalue the currency, the poorer have to get poorer, even if they don't get less money, but the amount of money that exists devalues the money of the poor. Inflation. And if political power can be bought through lobbying or corruption, there does not exist a democracy.

Fascism has the consequence that one group of people become absolute and govern the rest which is definitely not democratic.

Moral judgements are relative, moral truth is not.

Another philosophy “conundrum” solved by your friendly neighborhood Skelator! See you next time!

How is one Patrick agreeing equal to objective truth?

Half of the comments in here are a bunch of equivocations on the words.

“Objective” morality would mean there are good things to do, and bad things to do. What people actually do in some hypothetical or real society is different and wouldn’t undermine the objective status of morality.

Listen to this example:

• Todd wants to go to the bank before it closes.
• Todd is not at the bank.
• Todd should travel to the bank before it closes.

This is a functional should statement. Maybe Todd does go, or maybe he doesn’t. But if he wants to fulfill his desires, he should travel if he wants to go to the bank. The point is that should statements, often used in morality, can inform us for less controversial topics.

Here’s another take: why should we be rational? We could base our epistemology on breeding, money, or other random ends. If you think I should be rational, you’re leveraging morality to do that.

Most people believe in objective morality, whether they understand it that way or not. Humans have disagreed over many subjects throughout history. Disagreement alone doesn’t undermine objectivity. It’s objectively true that the Earth revolves around the sun. Some nut case with a geocentric mindset isn’t going to convince me otherwise. You can argue it’s objective because we can test it, but how do I test my epistemology?

This is just a philosophy 101 run around. I’m a moral pluralist who believes in utilizing many moral theories to help understand the moral landscape. If we were to study the human body, you’d use biology, physics, chemistry, and so on. When looking at a moral problem, I look at it from the main moral theories and look for consensus around a moral stance.

I’m not interested in debating, but there’s so many posts making basic mistakes about morality. My undergraduate degree was in ethics, and I’ve published on meta ethics. We ain’t solving this in a lemmy thread, but there’s a lot of literature to read for those interested.

What? So just because I happen to agree with your stance, I also have to concede that there's such a thing as objective morality?

Morality is subjective by definition.

I'd assume it got removed because the title didn't include rule, but the modlogs just calls you unhinged.

All 3 would receive a negative response in the last 100 years in different parts of the world. Hell there are plenty of places currently where women can't vote, slavery is a thing and the government isn't working toward a better society. Those places wouldn't exist if those people thought it was morally wrong. Objective morality is definitely not a thing.

If objective morality existed, we wouldn't be arguing about those things since we would all be in the same agreement.

Even "murder is wrong" isn't objective morally when you ask someone who believes in the death penalty.

I don't use 196 but aren't images on there supposed to be funny? That's probably why this was removed.

It got removed because you're meme is objectively wrong.

But what if all women voted in favour for slavery?

The only way you can be sure that there is one 'true morality is, "If you don't want it done to you then don't do it to others."

if I kill someone's loved one for some reason maybe for me it is not morally wrong because that person "deserved it" but if they kill someone dear to me can I consider it morally acceptable? definitely not

But did you follow the rule?

So is this meant to be a cryptic argument against objective morality and for less ethical actions? Group consensus and moral relativity can apply to... Idk, the Nazi regime?

OR is this an argument saying we need more people to agree about what is "objectively" moral if we want it to become true? Democratically around consensus?

I imagine this argument has been used in bad faith more than it has been used in good faith.

Blahaj will remove anything that makes anyone mildly uncomfortable, including having to think too hard

Can't something be objectively immoral whilst simultaneously being something that some people like to do? Does the objective morality of any given action need to be linked to a specific groups preference?

Slavers liked to keep slaves but it didn't make them right to do it. Im sure the slaves didn't enjoy it. Objectively, it's morally wrong to gain from somebody elses loss. The fact that people are happy to do it doesn't affect moral objectivity.