this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
227 points (88.5% liked)

Memes

51305 readers
1537 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 40 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Is it actually? As far as I'm aware, it doesn't really make any statements that anything is moral or immoral, nor is it a framework that could be used to determine such things by itself, more so a statement on the validity of such things. Or in other word, is it really a moral thesis, or is it a thesis about moral thesis?

[–] Zo0@feddit.de 13 points 2 years ago

Yeah I don't understand the point the meme is trying to make

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

You're on the right track here. It's a metaethical claim, not a moral one.

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

You could argue that moral relativism is a metaethical thesis and so is not straight away self-defeating. Even so, moral relativists often go on to claim that we shouldn't judge the moral acts of other cultures based on what we take to be universal moral standards. Because, get this, it would be wrong to do so.

[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not smart enough to understand anything in this conversation, but "Metaethical" seems like it would be a good metal band name

Followed by Postmetaethical when they lose a member

[–] neptune@dmv.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This sounds like Goedels theorem. How could a philosophy be consistent and have an opinion about every moral topic?

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not sure morality would have the same problems with recursion that math has.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not sure it's the SAME but if there were a system of created ethics that were able to speak to everything and do so consistently.... Wouldn't we know?

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Why would we? Ethics can be just as opaque as any other subject. It took us thousands of years to get economics, psychology, etc. to where they are.

[–] HappyRedditRefugee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Yooo. You are onto something here.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Is it that it's wrong or simply that it lacks proper context? Like if you're going to judge a culture you should learn the culture that seems obvious even without the arguments about morality