this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
717 points (94.1% liked)
Memes
45895 readers
1320 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
You misrepresent or misunderstood my argument
No such thing as objective morality exists or can exist.
It's contextual, ie subjective.
No need to equicovate.
Then consensus can't exist and the opinions of the majority are meaningless as are any of your postulations.
Congratulations you destroyed your own argument.
I'm not arguing for "one single 100% objective morality". I'm arguing for social progress - maybe towards one of an infinite number of meaningful, functioning moralities that are objectively better than what we have now. Like optimizing or approximating a function that we know has no precise solution.
And "objective" can't mean some kind of ground truth by e.g. a divine creator. But you can have objective statistical measurements for example about happiness or suffering, or have an objective determination if something is likely to lead to extinction or not.