• balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • neptune@dmv.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

        • neptune@dmv.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year 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.

    • DreamButt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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