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

  • Kalash@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For example: “being gay is wrong” and “being gay is not wrong”

    Both cannot be true. One is right, one is wrong. This is objective

    Ok, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what “objective” means. Neither of these statements is true.

    Objective means, something can be confirmed by observation. For example if we were in a room and there would be a rock on the table and you say “there is a rock on the table” that would be true. And everyone else in the world could look into the room and observe for them themselves that the rock is infact sitting on the table. That’s objective truth.

    However if you said “this rock is ugly”, that is not objective. Differnet people will have different opinion on the prettiness of the rock, because it’s an inherently subjective quality. There is not “true” value for the rock’s prettiness that can be observed.

    The same goes for all moral judgements. You can not observe or meassure a moral quality objetivily because it’s a value that is assigned by the judgment of a human brain. It’s not an intrinsic quality of nature.

      • Kalash@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That definition perfectly aligns with what I just told you and directly contradicts your point.

        There is such a thing as objective morality, or moral truth

        Then please tell me how I it can be factually messured or observed. I’m waiting.

        • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          We don’t have any measure by which to determine what is or is not moral truth. Still doesn’t make it any less real.

          To give an analogy - whether or not there is some all-powerful being controlling everything in the universe. We have no way to measure whether or not there is. But there is still an objective truth. There either is, or there is not. Our inability to measure or determine it does not make the truth any less real. It simply means we do not know.

    • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what “objective” means.

      Objective (adj.)

      1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

      2. not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

      In other words: real, true, or factual

      There is such a thing as objective morality, or moral truth.

      Inability to determine what that is does not make it any less real.

      • BluesF@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So there exists an asbolute moral truth, but we have no way to determine what it is? I’m sure we can agree that morals don’t have a physical form, so in what way does it “exist”?