Ethical relativity states that the goodness of dogs is absolute regardless of the frame of reference
There IS such thing as aether in the Theory of Moral Relativity: dogs.
hm well I agree with you, but some people have a weird frame of reference that makes them imagine the concept of a "bad dog"
"But with dogs, we do have "bad dog." Bad dog exists. "Bad dog! Bad dog! Stole a biscuit, bad dog!" The dog is saying, "Who are you to judge me? You human beings who’ve had genocide, war against people of different creeds, colors, religions, and I stole a biscuit?! Is that a crime? People of the world!"
"Well, if you put it that way, I think you’ve got a point. Have another biscuit, sorry."
Eddie Izzard, Glorious
exactly!
But what the dog is doing is it is generalising. That is a beginner's logical fallacy. It is suggesting that just because somebody else in a group that it perceives you to be in did something unjust, you carry responsibility for that injustice as well. Which does not hold. It is like blaming a German for the Holocaust. So the dog's argument is cunning, but inherently flawed.
This goes double for human good girls.
And somehow there's always so many more ways to be called "bad" than "good."
for real! let's invent way to call good girls "good" 😤
Incorrect, there is no debate
Ethical relativity states that the goodness of dogs is absolute regardless of the frame of reference
There IS such thing as aether in the Theory of Moral Relativity: dogs.
hm well I agree with you, but some people have a weird frame of reference that makes them imagine the concept of a "bad dog"
"But with dogs, we do have "bad dog." Bad dog exists. "Bad dog! Bad dog! Stole a biscuit, bad dog!" The dog is saying, "Who are you to judge me? You human beings who’ve had genocide, war against people of different creeds, colors, religions, and I stole a biscuit?! Is that a crime? People of the world!" "Well, if you put it that way, I think you’ve got a point. Have another biscuit, sorry." Eddie Izzard, Glorious
exactly!
But what the dog is doing is it is generalising. That is a beginner's logical fallacy. It is suggesting that just because somebody else in a group that it perceives you to be in did something unjust, you carry responsibility for that injustice as well. Which does not hold. It is like blaming a German for the Holocaust. So the dog's argument is cunning, but inherently flawed.
This goes double for human good girls.
And somehow there's always so many more ways to be called "bad" than "good."
for real! let's invent way to call good girls "good" 😤