Skip Navigation

Philosophy meme

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

273

You're viewing a single thread.

273 comments
  • An Aztec would not agree to any of that. They took slaves, they didn't allow women to vote because they didn't allow voting and women were second-class and they weren't interested in a fair and equitable society, which is part of the reason their enemies helped the Spanish take them down.

    So I'd say that your 'objective truths' didn't apply to a major human civilization.

    • Here is an adjacent argument to the one you gave:

      1. Some people think the election was fixed
      2. Some people think the election was fair

      Therefore, there is no "objective truth" to whether the election was fair or fixed.

      Moral of the story, disagreement alone does not entail a lack of objective truth. But the post was not about moral disagreement, it was about moral progress.

      Moral relativists have a hard time explaining why we should have moral progress. The moral relativist will argue that any action whatsoever will be a good action if there is a certain group consensus. So why should we fight for a more fair and equitable society if the society we have now is *exactly * as morally good as any other system we could enact? Even worse, if the majority of people in your situation believe that something unjust is the right thing to do, then protesting against them is morally wrong.

You've viewed 273 comments.