@Background Pony #5104
A really weird way of phrasing it. But yeah social nature slows down change and those that want to go against the social norm are what’s known as “radical”.
I also don’t think it’s the social stances that are the problem. I think social media and digitilization in general destroying social relationships that’s the problem.
But morals have always evolved. I mean the idea of woman voting would have been outrageous in the early 19th century but was accepted in the early 20th. The entitled status of straight white males has been decreasing for a long time and of course they will claim that their dominance is what a ‘healthy’ society needs.
We never ‘got away’ from objectivity because it never existed in constitutional democracies, they even specifically forbid that. Islamic countries have moral objectivity because they see the Koran as objectively moral and therefore should override everything else.
@marinus18
The truth is that morality is technically subjective because of the nature of free will but should be treated as objective to maintain a healthy human society. Getting away from that objectivity led our societies morals to change and for us to accept things that would have triggered a revolution 200 years ago.
@Background Pony #1F4B
Then that law is written badly. Writing laws that convey the intent behind it and leave no loopholes is very difficult. That’s why laws go through a very lengthy process of reviews, rewrites and editing before being officially entered as law.
I don’t know of any instance where extra clarity allowed for loopholes. I mean having a ton of laws that could be simpler does allow for loopholes but not extra clarity. Usually clarity is added to close up loopholes.
@modus_ponens 🍎🐴=🥇🐴
That’s why lawbooks are hundreds of pages thick and why being a lawyer is a full time profession. the main reason laws are so extremely long and excruciatingly detailed is to close up loopholes as much as possible.
@marinus18
yeah I agree, morality is subjective bcos it exists in individual minds. the fact tht many people share similar moral judgements can make it seem objective, but widespread agreement isn’t the same as objectivity. being subjective doesn’t make morality meaningless or unstable it just means its source is in human judgment rather than an external fact.
some get it wrong and some get it right but everyone is operating subjectively so that’s not the problem here. It’s just how the our minds operates by default.
@S-3125
Agree! Following moral rules by the exact word (and not by the meaning) allows you to exploit loopholes of your rule set without burden on your heart.
I’ve found that a descent number of those who espouse objective morality seem to do so as a mask to try and hide their complete lack of morality, assuming they understand the concept of morality at all.
The real mental gymnastics are from those that try to somehow justify how ‘objective morality’ can even be possible and what if anything can dictate it. Moral relativism is just the acceptance that morality is subjective and so trying to impose some kind of objectivity is a fools errant.
Twilight Sparkle:
D-D-Dash you don’t understand. Child sacrifice is a vibrant part of llama culture, you can’t force our own beliefs on them. Celestia wouldn’t approve.
Ahem my morality is objective. Let me first list its axioms:
1. This morale is the only correct way of thinking.
2. This morale defines itself to be self-consistent, and capable of determining a definite answer to every moral and philosophical question that can be expressed withing natural language.
3. Every other incompatible morale is not only uneducated, but wrong and bad.
Now the formal proof is as follows:
Axiom 1. is clearly true because of axiom 2.
Axiom 2. is also clearly true because of the axiom 2.
Proof of the axiom 3. is left as an exercise to the reader.
The real mental gymnastics are from those that try to somehow justify how ‘objective morality’ can even be possible and what if anything can dictate it. Moral relativism is just the acceptance that morality is subjective and so trying to impose some kind of objectivity is a fools errant.
A really weird way of phrasing it. But yeah social nature slows down change and those that want to go against the social norm are what’s known as “radical”.
I also don’t think it’s the social stances that are the problem. I think social media and digitilization in general destroying social relationships that’s the problem.
We never ‘got away’ from objectivity because it never existed in constitutional democracies, they even specifically forbid that. Islamic countries have moral objectivity because they see the Koran as objectively moral and therefore should override everything else.
The truth is that morality is technically subjective because of the nature of free will but should be treated as objective to maintain a healthy human society. Getting away from that objectivity led our societies morals to change and for us to accept things that would have triggered a revolution 200 years ago.
Then that law is written badly. Writing laws that convey the intent behind it and leave no loopholes is very difficult. That’s why laws go through a very lengthy process of reviews, rewrites and editing before being officially entered as law.
At the same time, the details make loopholes possible.
That’s why lawbooks are hundreds of pages thick and why being a lawyer is a full time profession. the main reason laws are so extremely long and excruciatingly detailed is to close up loopholes as much as possible.
Edited
yeah I agree, morality is subjective bcos it exists in individual minds. the fact tht many people share similar moral judgements can make it seem objective, but widespread agreement isn’t the same as objectivity. being subjective doesn’t make morality meaningless or unstable it just means its source is in human judgment rather than an external fact.
Agree! Following moral rules by the exact word (and not by the meaning) allows you to exploit loopholes of your rule set without burden on your heart.
Edited
So is mine. I guess we must share the same morality, right?
Edited