Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
We mostly agree. I'd reiterate that I do think avoiding shameful discourse is paramount to finding common ground which is the position we seem to be stuck on. I'd also say again that ,yes, I think avoiding shame based dialoge is the most morally correct thing in instances like this. But I feel that is an objective fact and not a motivation for me personally. Its been a good discussion and I appreciate the things you've said and how they've challenged my ideas. I likely wont change my approach much, but, you've made the best case I've heard so far on this. I'm sure we'll be at odds again in another ask post, I look forward to future arguments haha.
(I swear I'm not trying to get the last word in and I am glad you have given my ideas a chance! I just want to point out an ontological pet peeve: you can't have an objective fact in a discussion about relative morality. If morality were objective, what would there be left to have conflict about?)
Its calm, morality is inherently subjective most of the time because it depends on each individuals value system. However, I believe some things are objectively morally wrong. You're driving down the street and see a random pedestrian, you stop, get out and shoot that pedestrian in the head, killing them. That is objectively morally wrong.
IDK, overpopulation is one of the largest factors in every major problem facing the world today. Reducing that population removes pressure from the mechanisms of society that are failing, which could quite reasonably be considered a positive and perhaps even imperative contribution to the group as a whole.
(Obviously I don't think that, it's a hyperbolic example on all sides, but that's the issue with trying to claim objectivity in morality: there are points within that justification for random death that from a certain perspective could be considered wholly valid)
Yeah, this one would run in circles. Good on ya though. Go argue with other posts I've made.