• Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    That’s because there are 2 general schools of thought in ethics - relativism and absolutism. Relativism (the idea that morality is intrinsic to the person’s experience and understanding) is the one that seems to be the most talked about in general society. I believe in absolutism, the idea that there is a set of guidelines for moral behavior regardless of your experiences or past.

    Your example (more formally known as the paradox of tolerance) is what convinces me that absolutism is the better school of thought

    • sloppychops@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I can’t help but be struck at how cowardly ‘moral relativism’ seems. Yes, you could potentially offend or step on someone’s toes if you express moral outrage at the practice of childhood genital mutiliation, for example, but are you truly opposed if you are willing to contextualise said opposition? If you have a strong moral objection to something, then have a strong moral objection.

      There are 8 billion people, and not all of them are going to or have to agree with you. There’s absolutely no need to play the chameleon to keep everyone happy.

      If your moral objection to something isn’t universal, then it isn’t an objection.