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

  • Znarf176@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like Matt Dillyhuntys approach to objective morality: he picks a subjective and kind of arbitrary foundation like wellbeing and objectively measures all actions against this foundation.

    • Poplar?@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the standard you use is wrong, no matter how well you use it in figuring out what to do, all the moral judgements that follow from it will be wrong.

      I mean that what Matt said has “objective” in there but not in the way that matters. It doesnt address the issues with not having a good way of getting at whats right.

      (Obv. this isnt to say that I think e.g some utilitarian approach focusing on wellbeing is wrong, its only the other bit I dont agree with)

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every standard is wrong or limited in ways, it doesn’t make them useless. Utilitarian views can be useful, but it’s also easy to argue that euthanasia for the handicapped is moral from a Utilitarian perspective.

        • Poplar?@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure but what Matt is suggesting would mean we can hold something completely wrong, even an absurd one as a moral framework so long as we use it properly.