• ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 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
        ·
        4 days 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
          ·
          3 days 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
            ·
            3 days 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
              ·
              3 days 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
                  ·
                  3 days 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
                    ·
                    3 days 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.’