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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      That would be the case if morals were something we can measure outside the human experience. Unfortunately there is no way to measure if something is moral or not outside how someone feels about it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Not really, if absolutely every single human at all stages of life believed it’s morally good to spit in their palm every day that would be an objective moral truth, there would be no subjectivity to it. For morals though no such thing exists.

          You don’t need to be able to observe it externally to distinguish it. For example i can say I have a conscious experience and that would be objectively true even though we have a pretty minimal understanding on what that really is or how to measure it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I’m not saying that, just that there’s no outside way of verifying if something is true or not in case of morals. I don’t believe objective morals exist because you can’t find a single moral stance shared among all of humanity not because you can’t measure the truth of that stance.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Is suffering good or bad? I don’t mean that in a specific context, but any type of suffering in itself.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I can’t really say about all kinds of suffering, it really depends on context.

              It’s like asking if all love is good. There are so many situations I can imagine it could be good or bad or even neutral.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                With out of context I mean in it’s nature. Imagine you have to cut off someone’s leg who doesn’t like pain and won’t profit from experiencing it during the amputation now or in the future, is it better to do it in the way it causes the most pain or the way it causes less pain, when it leads to exactly the same result?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Oh in that context it’s absolutely worse. And in a complete vaccum where no action or even existence precedes or continues from that one moment of suffering it’s also bad.

                  Though because such a vacuum does not exist in reality suffering can be good. For example choosing to suffer to bring about some good outcome would be good. Or suffering that builds character for some future event. Also some forms of suffering are enjoyable to some people.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Yeah of course. But that doesn’t change that it’s objective. I don’t mean suffering just as in physical pain.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Exactly, physical pain and other forms of suffering are an objective reality. You can, in theory at last, decide objectively whether any decision will lead to more or less pain immediately and in the future.

                If you look at ethics you could assume the only axiom it has is that when comparing more pain or less pain, less pain is better. This is even independent from circumstance if you consider all suffering now and in the future that are consequences of an observed decision.

                In my opinion that makes the decision whether something is morally bad or good objective in it’s nature.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    You could still in theory measure it if you also measure whether and to what extent the idea that pain is a virtue leads to more or less suffering in the life of the person and others directly and indirectly affected.

                    Otherwise what you suggest is that consequences don’t exist if we can’t foresee them. But obviously the consequences will objectively exist, whether or not we can measure them.

                    Imagine you could look at the whole universe, all factors in all of it’s future. It’s an objective reality, if you agree that suffering is real, that every option will either entail more, less or the same amount of suffering than the other options.

                    That’s what I am asking, is the option that entails more suffering better or the one that entails less suffering?