Can both points not be true? There will be local morals and social morals that differ from place to place with overarching morals that tend to be everywhere.
Not all morals or beliefs have to be unshakable or viewed as morally reprehensible for disagreement.
Unless they mean all their ethics are held that way in which case that's just the whole asshole in a different deck chair joke.
If you agree that morals are relative and culturally constructed, then you shouldn't reject differences in morals of others as immoral.
That's basically just taking a position where you want to be able to change your mind on what's "moral", and expect everyone else to follow your opinion on it.
I don't think acknowledging morals as relative to the culture they exist within exempts decrees of immorality. Relative to their culture, it is. Should they speak from the point of view of a culture that they don't understand? I personally think it's a sliding scale where, to the extent it harms other people, it needs to be viewed more objectively just, and where it doesn't harm, it's fine being a difference in opinion. The only downside to this is that sometimes you don't know enough about a topic to know there are victims, and so your prescriptive thoughts can change very quickly about the morality of it. Perspective is important and should always be maximized to avoid this problem.
I said that some are but it seems cultures share a couple of them in common like not killing without cause. So in that system there are local morals and global/regional morals.
Not all morals or beliefs have to be unshakable or viewed as morally reprehensible for disagreement.
The tweet suggests the sample group disagrees with this statement.
I think you're expressing the general consensus: people get a lot of their morals from their environment, but there's some stuff that's universal/non-negotiable; and we should be able to find common ground with that.
At least, I think that's the general consensus. I've gotten into trouble with that assumption though.
This is basically how teaching secular ethics always is, though. Doesn't seem special about 2025. People will always be overconfident in their beliefs, but it's not necessarily a coincidence or even hypocrisy that they can hold both views at the same time.
You can believe that morality is a social construct while simultaneously advocating for society to construct better morals. Morality can be relative and opposing views on morality can still be perceived as monstrous relative to the audience's morality.
The misunderstanding I see here is in the definition of “subjective”.
Subjective is often used interchangeably with opinion. And people can certainly have different opinions.
But the subjective that is meant is that morals don’t exist without a subject, aka a mind to comprehend them.
A rock exists whether or not a mind perceives the rock. The rock is objective. It is a physical object.
The idea that it is wrong to harm someone for being different is subjective. It is an idea. A thought. The thought does not exist without a mind.
So yes. Morals are all subjective. Morals do not exist in the physical world. Morals are not objects, they do not objectively exist. They exist within a subject. Morals subjectively exist.
That does not mean that any set of morals is okay because it’s just an opinion, bro. Because it’s not just an opinion. Those subjective values effect objective reality.
I think this is a bit too simple. Suppose I say that moral badness, the property, is any action that causes people pain, in the same way the property of redness is the quality of surfaces that makes people experience the sensation of redness. If this were the case, morality (or at least moral badness) would absolutely not be a subjective property.
Whether morality is objective or subjective depends on what you think morality is about. If it's about things that would exist even if we didn't judge them to be the way they are, it's objective. If it's about things that wouldn't exist unless we judge them to be the way they are, it's subjective.
Nobody used the word subjective. What are you on about?
So you legitimately don't recognize the screenshot as being fundamentally based around the issues of subjectivity and objectivity?
I mean.. what are you on about?
I think you should read more carefully in the future, but this time I’ll explain it to you: The OP used the word relative. The reply went into a discussion about how the word subjective has a narrow meaning in philosophy that isn’t the same as the common usage. The OP was not discussing subjectivity in the sense of the reply, nor did it use the word subjective.
Probably in relation to the use of 'relative', I guess a synonym for subjective?
(Edit) I thought is was an interesting comment btw
Yeah, I guess. Maybe they misread the OP. I agree that it was interesting, though completely irrelevant to the statement in the OP.
I don't know, I might intellectually understand that morals are relative to a culture and that even our concept of universal human rights is an heritage of our colonial past and, on some level, trying to push our own values as the only morality that can exist. On a gut level though, I am entirely unable to consider that LGBT rights, gender equality or non-discrimination aren't inherently moral.
I don't think holding these two beliefs is weird, it's a natural contradiction worth debating and that's what I would expect from an ethics teacher
That's because there are 2 general schools of thought in ethics - relativism and absolutism. Relativism (the idea that morality is intrinsic to the person's experience and understanding) is the one that seems to be the most talked about in general society. I believe in absolutism, the idea that there is a set of guidelines for moral behavior regardless of your experiences or past.
Your example (more formally known as the paradox of tolerance) is what convinces me that absolutism is the better school of thought
I can't help but be struck at how cowardly 'moral relativism' seems. Yes, you could potentially offend or step on someone's toes if you express moral outrage at the practice of childhood genital mutiliation, for example, but are you truly opposed if you are willing to contextualise said opposition? If you have a strong moral objection to something, then have a strong moral objection.
There are 8 billion people, and not all of them are going to or have to agree with you. There's absolutely no need to play the chameleon to keep everyone happy.
If your moral objection to something isn't universal, then it isn't an objection.
Excuse me I was told that anyone who says "people view disagreement as moral monstrosity" is actually a nazi.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
