this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
213 points (88.2% liked)

Memes

45324 readers
1903 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

You could argue that moral relativism is a metaethical thesis and so is not straight away self-defeating. Even so, moral relativists often go on to claim that we shouldn't judge the moral acts of other cultures based on what we take to be universal moral standards. Because, get this, it would be wrong to do so.

[–] BleatingZombie 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not smart enough to understand anything in this conversation, but "Metaethical" seems like it would be a good metal band name

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Followed by Postmetaethical when they lose a member

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This sounds like Goedels theorem. How could a philosophy be consistent and have an opinion about every moral topic?

[–] Anamnesis 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure morality would have the same problems with recursion that math has.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure it's the SAME but if there were a system of created ethics that were able to speak to everything and do so consistently.... Wouldn't we know?

[–] Anamnesis 3 points 1 year ago

Why would we? Ethics can be just as opaque as any other subject. It took us thousands of years to get economics, psychology, etc. to where they are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yooo. You are onto something here.

[–] tdawg 0 points 1 year ago

Is it that it's wrong or simply that it lacks proper context? Like if you're going to judge a culture you should learn the culture that seems obvious even without the arguments about morality