And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?
And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?
Morals and ethics are subjective and based on emotions. That’s why science doesn’t say what’s good or bad. I don’t think you can prove or disprove this argument. People who are strongly focused on Gaza simply reject views that challenge their own.
Personally, I don’t see morals as entirely subjective.
I’d say that ‘worst possible misery for everyone’ is objectively bad and any attempt to move away from that is better.
Morality is not subjective. It is not (or at least should not) be based on emotions.
Morality is most definitely subjective. Talk to different groups around the globe and you’ll find different moral boundaries. The morals posed by Islam differ from christianity, which differ from buddhism, which all differ from nihilistic views, and still further diverge from tribal morals of small secluded tribes of people. While they shouldn’t be based on emotion, they do tend to be reactionary and emotional at their outset. And breaking them within any particular group tends to get you strong emotional responses.