• ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Moral relativism is consequentialist nonsense, and like most consequentialist nonsense, easy to abuse to justify evil acts. I can’t agree to that.

    • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Back in the day, philosophers would stand in the public square and debate any one as an equal.

      Today, ‘philosophers’ hide behind specialized lingo only they understand.

      And don’t say I could look it up. Einstein said that if a scientist couldn’t explain what he was doing to a five year old the scientist was a fraud.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Okay, five-year-old:

        Doing good is important. Sometimes, you want do do a lot of good but feel like you can only do a little good. That’s okay! Do what you can.

        Sometimes you may think it’s okay to be naughty, because you know other kids who are very naughty all the time. But it’s still not okay to be naughty, even a little bit.

        • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          My father is going to beat up my mom if he finds out that she took his drug money to buy food.

          Are you saying I shouldn’t lie? That it’s more important to tell the truth than to protect my mom from a beating?

          • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            False dichotomy, those aren’t your only choices.

            Further, lying isn’t automatically wrong. Deceiving or otherwise inhibiting a hostile, evil entity is virtuous.

              • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Your point remains unmade. If it was a defense of moral relativism, the arguments don’t support the conclusion. If it was something else, I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say.

                • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Of course you don’t understand because I’m not using your approved lingo.

                  I had a good laugh watching you go from trying to use plain language, and then jumping to ‘moral relativism.’