Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DirtyOldPanties t1_j0hamrj wrote

There can be no compromise on moral principles. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. When you deny that morality is binary, when you deny the good as a standalone achievable thing, only evil will benefit from this.

4

tankyogremagi t1_j0hkw5i wrote

Pretty sure that the argument is that by defining singular actions as one or the other we reduce our chance to learn from them.

Not saying that there are things without an obvious dichotomy, but rather the space between each is huge.

Stealing is bad.

But when you steal from a corporation that increases their prices bc of theft, who are you directly hurting.

Point is to increase discourse over issues in order find truth buried in right and wrong.

10

Boredomdefined t1_j0hv62b wrote

Any rationale instead of matter of fact statements? Because you clearly didn’t even hear their points.

4

Philosoferking t1_j0i2h5x wrote

But what is good and bad is relative and never concrete.

3

DirtyOldPanties t1_j0ijewt wrote

Relative to what if not concretes?

1

Philosoferking t1_j0ijwsk wrote

I don't know what that means. But is this the is ought problem?

2

DirtyOldPanties t1_j0iwoqg wrote

Well you said good and bad is relative and I'm asking you relative to what?

1

Philosoferking t1_j0ix3v9 wrote

Relative to whatever this or that person or group of people happen to feel about a topic.

There's no such thing as a solid concrete morality as if bestowed upon us by God. That would make things a lot easier.

But without being able to be lazy and just say "cuz God said so" how can we know what is moral and good and what isn't?

1

TheMain_Ingredient t1_j0hq5kv wrote

I'm cool with calling actions good or evil. It's calling people good or evil that I have a problem with. And even when it comes to actions, I think it's not always clear whether it's good or evil.

But before we talk about good or evil, we have to define it. I'm always entertained when somebody says "good and evil are objective" and then say a bunch of obviously unintuitive and controversial things are right or wrong.

1

SirLeaf t1_j0htg9w wrote

The concept of moral principals presupposes a binary morality (principle vs no principles). If you deny binary morality (principles) there needs to be no compromise.

1

Pantsmanface t1_j0kzjy5 wrote

Such a blind and egotistical take.

Some people think it's good to commit acts others consider evil. If neither side can compromise all you have is inevitable genocide and the only morals that matter are who has the biggest stick.

1

WaveCore t1_j0hm7ga wrote

Both problems can simultaneously exist. Yes when it comes to societal problems, it would be too chaotic to entertain nuance, a binary system is practical and achieves more order than the alternative.

However, that way of thinking does not necessarily need to extend to the way we think on an individual level. "Good" and "bad" should and is helpful to constantly requestion and reevaluate.

0