Philosophy meme

balderdash@lemmy.zip to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world – 296 points –

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

254

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

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.

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)

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.

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.

You can. The absurdity is based on your inherent bias, the concept of absurdity is arbitrary.