These motherfuckers are trying to take away our mail in voting system on the West Coast. If I have to stand in fucking line to vote again for no reason I’m gonna be pissed.

Somehow this is such a Ken M response lol

We always dyed real eggs and hunted a mix of the real eggs and the plastic ones with candy in them.

They get antsy if they haven’t had any university students to run over for a while. Come on, there’s gotta be a new sophomore they can hit at 72 miles per hour, isn’t there?

I mean, “Super Troopers” is right there for you to use

Thanks bro, had read it in Plato but was on a real King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard kick when I signed up for Lemmy (still am).

Butwhy.gif

This honestly makes me feel a lot better. If the second Trump admin is anything like the first it’ll only kill a million Americans with a middling response to a pandemic disease while it fumbles around incompletely and issues a bunch of offensive pronouncements. I’m serious, things could be worse.

A lot of what you said here is an implication of subjectivism, but not an argument for it. Subjectivism about morality is no more an implication of an empiricist worldview than subjectivism about the shape of the Earth.

What you’re suggesting here sounds a lot like the logical positivists’ position on ethics. The descriptive is falsifiable, the normative is not, so it must be subjective. The problem with that view is that we can’t draw neat lines between the normative and the descriptive. If I’m attempting to model the world descriptively, I’m still going to be guided by normative considerations about what constitutes a good model. Science is not purely empirical, and ethics is not purely normative. Philosophy in general is not a discrete subject, separate from science. The two are continuous.

And we’ve known since Plato that God doesn’t play into it, one way or the other.

I think the issue is that students aren’t consistent. They’ll fall back on relativism or subjectivism when they don’t really have a strong opinion, or perceive there to be a lot of controversy about the subject that they don’t want to have to argue about. But fundamentally, whether there’s an objective and universal answer to some moral question or not really doesn’t depend on whether there’s controversy about it, or whether it’s convenient or cool to argue about.

I think that there are parts of morality that really are culturally relative and subjective, and parts that aren’t. Variation in cultural norms is totally okay, as long as we don’t sacrifice the objective, universal stuff. (Like don’t harm people unnecessarily, etc.). The contours of the former and the latter are up for debate, and we shouldn’t presume that anybody knows the exact boundary.

I think this is a bit too simple. Suppose I say that moral badness, the property, is any action that causes people pain, in the same way the property of redness is the quality of surfaces that makes people experience the sensation of redness. If this were the case, morality (or at least moral badness) would absolutely not be a subjective property.

Whether morality is objective or subjective depends on what you think morality is about. If it’s about things that would exist even if we didn’t judge them to be the way they are, it’s objective. If it’s about things that wouldn’t exist unless we judge them to be the way they are, it’s subjective.

People have been arguing about whether morality is subjective, and writing dissertations about that subject, for thousands of years. Is any of us really familiar enough with that very detailed debate to render a judgment like “morality is subjective” as though it’s an obvious fact? Does anybody who just flatly says morality is subjective understand just how complex metaethics is?

https://images.app.goo.gl/fBQbi2J5osxuFmvt7

I think “morality is subjective” is just something we hear apparently worldly people say all the time, and nobody really has any idea.

By the way, I have a PhD in ethics and wrote my dissertation on the objectivity/subjectivity of ethics. Long story short, we don’t know shit!

Hah! Cool to see Henry pop up on my feed. I knew this guy back when he was a grad student. And as somebody that also teaches ethics, he is dead on. Undergrads are not only believe all morality is relative and that this is necessary for tolerance and pluralism (it’s not), but are also insanely judgmental if something contradicts their basic sense of morality.

Turns out, ordinary people’s metaethics are highly irrational.

Oh no! Anyway…

This is a big problem as a leftist who likes to shoot guns.

Glad to see my congresswoman showing a better alternative to this insanity. If the Dems only had congressmen like Jayapal and AOC we would actually be getting somewhere.

If we had elected Bernie we would have something approaching systemic change. People need to see something else is possible; I can’t see this hurting.

😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

Whatever happened to being a good neighbor? Canada is not hurting the US. There’s no reason to hit them with tariffs in the first place. Having power does not automatically mean using it at everyone else’s expense is right.

Hey we philosophy majors make a lot more money than other humanities disciplines on average.

…because so many of us become lawyers.