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
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
This isn't the contradiction you make it to be. Patrick, in the first three slides, is just repeating the group's collective consensus he was raised in.
Came here to say this exact thing
I would have used a lot more words, but that's exactly what I wanted to say.
I would have just said Patrick’s opinions are subjective not objective
I sadly already made me 200w comment before reading the comments 🥲
Honest question: if a person living in the west in the 21st century thinks they should have the right to take people of a different race as their own personal slaves, do you think there is no basis to call this person immoral? The best we can do is say that this person is incompatible with the time and place they are in?
We in the west have a basis to call this person immoral.
The places where slavery is legal do not have that basis.
Ask the slaves that lol. That argument is moot because it relies on legitimizing the oppression committed by slavers by not seeing enslaved people as part of the population/group. Their history was not recorded the same way the slaver's history was, yet they were still humans that thought about, talked about, and theorized about morality too. You don't get to claim to know the group consensus of a past society just because slavers used oppression to erase the viewpoints of those who disagreed.
That's a very good point. Moral relativism can be true and oppressors can still be bad.
This qualifier alone shows that "objective" moral truth is defined only by where/when you live. You're also showing your own modern western bias here.
If you really think chattel slavery was morally acceptable for the slave owners just because there was a group consensus that the slaves were inferior... then I'm willing to let you go on thinking that
edit: Thankfully, like truths in metaphysics, moral truths are not determined by group consensus. So your downvotes mean nothing lol
I feel like you're intentionally missing your own point.
You're being downvoted because that was clearly bad faith. Slavery doesn't have group consensus among all involved, not even all non-slaves.
Consensus obviously cant mean every single person agreeing, its about what the widespread view in the culture is.
Either way its a hypothetical, doesnt matter if such a culture never existed in reality: suppose slavery was condone by some culture. Wouldnt that have made it moral?
Going by the meme: if a society is mysognist you would be wiling to agree its correct for them and womens rights activist in that society should stop (theyre going against what the culture has decided is moral, making the activist immoral)?
By definition, yes.
Southern whites in the pre Civil War period considered slavery to be a moral good.
Other cultures disagreed, to the point that this particular culture was all but destroyed.
When I asked if slavery was right for them, I wasnt trying to describe their attitudes. I am saying that a consequence of thinking cultural relativism is true is that you must admit that they were correct in the attitudes they held (because their culture agreed it was right).
No, and that's stupid.
Let me clarify, because I want to make sure you understand. I'm not saying that I have a different take. I'm not saying that perhaps you misunderstand. I'm saying that's a fundamentally stupid thing to believe.
The whole point of relativism is that your simplistic concept of ANYTHING being "correct" is wrong. It's relative. It's not correct. Nothing is correct. Some people just thought it was correct.
Relativism says there is no objective truth but you're just for some reason trying to say that relativism believes in objective truth but only for supporting bad things. It's a ridiculous, childish take on a philosophy and I'm having trouble understanding how you could come to that conclusion. It has the intellectual rigor of "I am rubber you are glue".
Cool down.
You are thinking of nihilism (specifically error theory it seems - that there are no moral facts and people are wrong for thinking there are) because relativism (whether relative to subject or culture) doesnt deny that there are moral truths, just that they are only correct for the individual or culture that holds them.
Same book as the other comment of mine you replied to.
So, no, I didnt get it wrong. And the consequences I pointed out do follow from cultural relativism.
I'm going to use a technique that I frequently use when discussing philosophy, to cut through the smokescreen of bullshit. Ignore your preconceived definitions. They don't matter. Instead of "cultural relativism", whatever you think that is, we are going to discuss "what the general population thinks of when they hear the term 'cultural relativism'". For short, I am going to call this Skywalker Theory. No academic has ever written about Skywalker Theory. There are no papers to reference. There's no books, no dissertations, no letters. Skywalker Theory exists solely in the minds of people who have never gone beyond Intro to Philosophy.
Skywalker Theory says:
Any time your see "Cultural Relativism", replace that with Skywalker Theory for the purposes of this discussion.
Skywalker Theory is not fleshed out. It's really just a premise. There's a lot that is up for discussion. Skywalker Theory may resemble established academic philosophies like nihilism, but it is not nihilism. It doesn't have the baggage of all the various discussions and terms and definitions and writings that the philosophy of nihilism has. You can say "nihilism says that [x]" and reference previous writings and scenarios and logical conclusions. You cannot say that about Skywalker Theory. There's nothing to reference.
I'm not really sure what to reply with.
"Skywalker theory" (so far identical to error theory) isnt what the post or the discussion is about. The meme is pretty clear it is about cultural relativism and clear about what it means by cultural relativism.
If you want to bring your own objection to moral realism, sure, but it makes little sense hijacking the definition to mean something entirely different and being unhappy this wasnt what the term others were using meant.
Wrong. The OP never mentions ANY specific philosophical theory. People commenting are clearly talking about little-r relativism, the popular definition, the one I gave, not the Relativism or Realism or Nihilism or whatever else "experts" have loaded down with jargon and tangents and straw men over the decades.
Skywalker theory strips you of philosophical tricks. You have to talk about the central premise, there is nothing more. Skywalker Theory is BY DEFINITION what we are talking about.
Modern philosophy is so weighted down, it's almost entirely a discussion about terms rather than ideas. Skywalker Theory undoes that.
OP says, "the truth of moral judgments is relative to group consensus". That's it. Discuss that, and just that.
OP (and the ensuing discussion) does not say "there is an objective Truth but it is whatever a group of people happens to believe at the time, especially if it's something that I personally believe is Bad", because that's an absurd and contradictory statement. That absurd statement is not a part of Skywalker Theory. No one cares if it's part of some other theory, that's a tangent. We're talking about Skywalker Theory.
See how it works?
You can't say "aha, your are clearly referring to the philosophy of fish guts, and as we all know the famous Professor Poopybutt demonstrated in 1803 that a belief in fish gut philosophy requires one to break one's own legs." No. Stop. We are not getting bogged down in a useless conversation about some crazy bullshit. We are not talking about fishgut theory, we are talking about Skywalker Theory, and Skywalker Theory has no other sources to reference than the premise given in this post, and the ensuing discussion.
That's a completely wrong and stupid definition of relativism. Either because the book is wrong, or (and I'll grant this is a possibility, because it happens a lot and it's why the whole field of philosophy should be killed with fire) the ivory tower academic definition has gone so far beyond reality that it's just completely absurd, and can be safely ignored as the ravings of a lunatic.
Either way, it's a straw man. Just in the 2nd case, there's a small group of batshit insane losers who actually believe the straw man is a real man, and they talk with it and have tea parties and shit. And get offended when you point out that it's made of straw and they should get mental help.
This is the definition Ive found people use when they bring up cultural relativism. Whether informally with stuff like "you cant judge them, its just their culture" or when more fleshed out. As far as I can tell, no, ethicists for and against cultural relativism are discussing something quite in touch with reality.
The author is an important figure in metaethics, its much more likely theres something you missed than him being wrong about a basic definition in a field he is an expert in.
Philosophy is weird and unique like that. The more of an expert someone is in a field, the more likely they are to be completely out of touch with reality.
The point is that slavery was seen as morally acceptable at some time and the moral relativist is forced to say that that means slavery was okay during that time. Most people here want to be moral relativists but they don't want to accept its consequences.
I think you don't quite understand moral relativism.
No they understand just fine. Here's a quote from an ethics book that gets at the same issue:
Russ Shafer-Landau - The fundamentals of ethics p.293 ("Some Implications of Ethical Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism")
Without knowing the context for this paragraph, this statement sounds like utter bullshit.
If that result is absurd, that probably just means you think cultural relativism is bullshit.
I can share a link to get the book, the context is quite short.
No, I mean I'm pretty sure that characterization of relativism is bullshit. A straw man if you will.
But most people don't believe this.
Believe what?
OP said
going by your quote, I don't think that's true.
I shared that quote to show that OP seems to know what moral relativism is, and their objection is something actual ethicists point out. I dont see what its got to do with how many people in the comments here are relativists.
I don't think the slaves ever saw slavery as acceptable.
There were Roman slaves devoted to their masters. They sometimes married them and often took their master's surname name when they were freed. Then kept slaves themselves. So yes, some slaves saw slavery as acceptable.
How's freshman Intro. to Philisophy treatin' ya?