We doing mindless and irrelevant reddit now? Why still give them pageviews?
As for the actual content, he doesn't argue in favor of human sacrifice, nor does he say he wouldn't mind if it happened to him (quite the opposite, in fact) - he merely stands by his moral relativist ideal that there isn't an objective metric about whether it's morally right or wrong.
OP, what exactly were you trying to achieve in posting this? It almost seems to me that you're trying to provoke some groupthink or mob reaction out of us. Either send us after the guy or have us console you because you can't process that you disagree with him. I sincerely hope your intentions were more noble than that, but you're not giving me much to go on here.
And yet, you're still browsing it. A fairly obscure part of it, too.
So I was right - you wanted us to do a bunch of groupthink and come to your defense. Console you when you were met with an argument you evidently couldn't defeat and so had to come here and misrepresent. Well sorry, I'm not here to play. You can convince yourself of whatever you please, but don't expect us to go on the same morally righteous crusades as the people we criticise.
There isn't much reason to resort to violence unless they're using a totalitarian form of moral relativism that demands participation from people who disagree. Maybe you were making an ironic proposition intentionally and it went over my head.
I'd never even really noticed moral relativists or moral idealists before. It seems like an alien argument to me, so I actually found the thread novel for bringing it to my attention.
I lean libertarian, so I don't really see any problem as long as the basic premise of not fucking with your fellows is held up - whether moral relativism or moral idealism.
What I gather from the context I collected in the thread is that moral relativism is used as an attack vector to degrade the stability of societies. In that use, sure, I'll roll with it and say "fuck those guys" because they're starting shit. I'm just not comfortable assuming the label carries that intent (especially when I'm not sure if the label applies to me).
I was actually thinking about it earlier today, so I'm prepared to research it a little. [an hour of navigating a semantic minefield later] I think the major pitfall here is that there are moral relativists saying "right/wrong depends on variables" (I can accept this) but then following it up with "so we should permit all behaviors within our society" (I can't accept societal suicide on a large scale because it will kill people who disagreed with the suicide, which makes it murder).
Finally, a little awkward, but since I'm studying Nietzsche right now, I may be claiming myself to be an immoralist once I can grasp how he's defining the term. I imagine such a proclamation would eject me from the relevant argument.
[meta: I really dislike the ability to chase users for downvoting. Normally I wouldn't flinch, but this thread's buried now so it's basically just you and me, so it looks like I'm downvoting you when I haven't even started thinking about the matter. I don't know, weird gripe I guess.]
We doing mindless and irrelevant reddit now? Why still give them pageviews?
As for the actual content, he doesn't argue in favor of human sacrifice, nor does he say he wouldn't mind if it happened to him (quite the opposite, in fact) - he merely stands by his moral relativist ideal that there isn't an objective metric about whether it's morally right or wrong.
OP, what exactly were you trying to achieve in posting this? It almost seems to me that you're trying to provoke some groupthink or mob reaction out of us. Either send us after the guy or have us console you because you can't process that you disagree with him. I sincerely hope your intentions were more noble than that, but you're not giving me much to go on here.
Yes. It's fun as fuck to watch the utter evil and insanity of Reddit. Lighten up.
And yet, you're still browsing it. A fairly obscure part of it, too.
So I was right - you wanted us to do a bunch of groupthink and come to your defense. Console you when you were met with an argument you evidently couldn't defeat and so had to come here and misrepresent. Well sorry, I'm not here to play. You can convince yourself of whatever you please, but don't expect us to go on the same morally righteous crusades as the people we criticise.
Here we go again.
If you were solid in your beliefs then you wouldn't need to misrepresent dissenting opinions and then come whining to us.
I wonder how he feels about helicopters?
Read the thread. He rather explicitly says he would mind.
Then that just means he'll scream amusingly in midair.
There is a really easy way to prove that nobody is really a moral relativist. Punch him in the mouth and then ask him if that was morally wrong.
If he doesn't say it was then you didn't punch him hard enough and you need to do it again.
There isn't much reason to resort to violence unless they're using a totalitarian form of moral relativism that demands participation from people who disagree. Maybe you were making an ironic proposition intentionally and it went over my head.
I'd never even really noticed moral relativists or moral idealists before. It seems like an alien argument to me, so I actually found the thread novel for bringing it to my attention.
I lean libertarian, so I don't really see any problem as long as the basic premise of not fucking with your fellows is held up - whether moral relativism or moral idealism.
What I gather from the context I collected in the thread is that moral relativism is used as an attack vector to degrade the stability of societies. In that use, sure, I'll roll with it and say "fuck those guys" because they're starting shit. I'm just not comfortable assuming the label carries that intent (especially when I'm not sure if the label applies to me).
I was actually thinking about it earlier today, so I'm prepared to research it a little. [an hour of navigating a semantic minefield later] I think the major pitfall here is that there are moral relativists saying "right/wrong depends on variables" (I can accept this) but then following it up with "so we should permit all behaviors within our society" (I can't accept societal suicide on a large scale because it will kill people who disagreed with the suicide, which makes it murder).
Finally, a little awkward, but since I'm studying Nietzsche right now, I may be claiming myself to be an immoralist once I can grasp how he's defining the term. I imagine such a proclamation would eject me from the relevant argument.
[meta: I really dislike the ability to chase users for downvoting. Normally I wouldn't flinch, but this thread's buried now so it's basically just you and me, so it looks like I'm downvoting you when I haven't even started thinking about the matter. I don't know, weird gripe I guess.]
CS Lewis completely BTFOs moral relativism. Look up 'Abolition of Man', specifically the essay 'Men Without Chests'.
I prefer Moral Realism. Some things are always right, some things are always wrong and some things can be right or wrong depending on the situation.