• fishos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    For the people not getting it:

    1. They treat morals as opinions.

    2. They also treat their personal opinions like they’re the absolute best opinion.

    Another way:

    They think everyone likes different ice cream flavors and that’s fine. They like Rocky Road flavor. They also think anyone who doesn’t is a monster.

    Convictions are one thing. But they need to be logically consistent. Saying morality is subjective but you’re evil if you don’t subscribe to my personal version is illogical.

    • taxiiiii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 minutes ago

      Let’s say we decide that morals what is right and wrong is decided entirely by ourselves. Then it makes perfect sense to defend your own opinions and to disagree with people who disagree with your stance on right and wrong. You chose those morals after all. It’s kinda part of the deal that they can’t apply to you alone (example: when is it just to kill?)

      So I don’t see a contradiction.

      I guess this post is about Inability to engage with a different set of morals. But assuming that their is an absolute truth for right and wrong wouldn’t solve that issue, so I’m not sure why they brought it up.