Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

  • UraniumBlazer@lemm.eeEnglish
    23·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      I’m seeing this point about moral epistemology a lot in this thread. Of course, philosophers have constructed convincing arguments in favor of different theories (classic ones being virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism). If you were to take a look at those arguments you might be persuaded to one camp or another.

      Also, I find this objection makes more sense for the moral skeptic than the moral relativist. If we really can’t know the moral value of an action, then why settle for saying its based on what humans think? Why not just go all out and say either 1) there is no such thing as moral value or 2) there is moral value but we have no way of knowing what it is.

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        If we really can’t know the moral value of an action, then why settle for saying its based on what humans think

        I never said that we can’t know the moral value of an action. All that I’m saying is that the moral value of an action is dependent on the entity giving the value. Morals cannot exist without beings capable of having morals.

        Why not just go all out and say either 1) there is no such thing as moral value or 2) there is moral value but we have no way of knowing what it is.

        Because saying either of these two statements would not reflect reality. There IS a thing such as moral value. It’s just not constant for all beings capable of having morals. For the second option, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is indeed a universal moral constant. Hence, “knowing” that value goes out of the window.