172
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
172 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
48035 readers
366 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The definition of what is "good" changes depending on the person, the situation, etc. It is like defining what is "perfect".
So what happens when two people in the same or similar situation define the same action, one defines it as good, the other as evil? It's pretty easy to construct a situation where each person feels morally justified in killing the other.
That doesn't seem like a very useful morality.
I didn't say it was a moral system, I never even used the word, it is human psychology and philosophy. Even in your example I could say "This was was to liberate X" then someone else says "That war killed so many civilians!". Someone fires a bunch of people to save the rest from losing their jobs, the fired people say it was bad, the others it was good. Same event, two views. You can have "Hot summers are perfect", the next person hates them.