Yeah that's certainly a thing. The way I see it, people talking about objective morality declare it to be something that's determined by a god or other being that has power over what happens in the universe, but that's exactly what humans/living things are, because we are all (imo) material beings in this reality that can shape it just like a higher power. That's why (imo) morals are significant to life on earth, and its important to treat them as something with cosmic levels of responsibility to uphold or abolish.
I guess my argument is that discussing whether they are objective or subjective is missing the point that we can shape the world regardless and should be responsible about that.
the best one is really a case by case basis, but deontology is operational enough in general, if it's enough for doctors opening up patients and ending their lives, it's enough for me
This is ultimately an assumption I can't prove but I believe in a very deterministic reality right, which to me means that free will doesn't exist as something outside or above the influences of life experiences or the environment surrounding a person. If the universe held randomness then your actions could be utterly meaningless if they get erased in the soup of randomness, which is far more terrifying of a reality than one where you have agency in the events of the world, even if your agency is informed by things exclusively out of your control. So i guess this is my personal Russell's teapot.
With this in mind, when choosing a moral system to work to enforce, punishment for going against this moral system is an absurd notion. (imo) belief in moral systems that also assume free will is what leads to all the fucked up justifications for why the moral system is being breached. Hierarchies in a general sense are the best example of this, because they place certain things below others based on either free will or inherent qualities that are beyond anyone's control, like punishing poor people for being poor because surely they'd have just pulled up their bootstraps if they were worthy of wealth, or eating sentient life is fine because might makes right or human tastebuds take priority or any other ridiculous reason btw :im-vegan:.
So i guess calling living things god-like moral actors is a bit misleading because what I mean is that living things have both the capability to greatly impact the reality around them, while also being results of the reality themselves.
This all ties back to my first comment about "caring for other things" being whats special in this world despite the indifferent void that is the universe, because living things have the power to shape the universe while also not being guilty for it, just responsible The existence of evil people in the world in my mind then becomes a cosmic tragedy rather than some evil to be battled triumphed over with moral superiority, but is still just as important to fight for change in.
And if you are one of those people (who are supporting bad systems if im understanding your comment right) I don't blame you, and so am I because I also contribute to capitalism and other things throughout my daily life. But my hope is that teaching everyone who is like that how it is still evil, and this evil is dependent on things that can be improved starting right now, would lead to a truly anti-hierarchical and empathetic system for fixing the world we live in.
So:
"I believe in a universe that doesn't care, and people who do."
You should probably also consider what the actual moral dilemmas that you face are for all the talk of the trolley problem have you ever met anyone who was in one
deleted by creator
Yeah that's certainly a thing. The way I see it, people talking about objective morality declare it to be something that's determined by a god or other being that has power over what happens in the universe, but that's exactly what humans/living things are, because we are all (imo) material beings in this reality that can shape it just like a higher power. That's why (imo) morals are significant to life on earth, and its important to treat them as something with cosmic levels of responsibility to uphold or abolish.
I guess my argument is that discussing whether they are objective or subjective is missing the point that we can shape the world regardless and should be responsible about that.
deleted by creator
the best one is really a case by case basis, but deontology is operational enough in general, if it's enough for doctors opening up patients and ending their lives, it's enough for me
deleted by creator
This is ultimately an assumption I can't prove but I believe in a very deterministic reality right, which to me means that free will doesn't exist as something outside or above the influences of life experiences or the environment surrounding a person. If the universe held randomness then your actions could be utterly meaningless if they get erased in the soup of randomness, which is far more terrifying of a reality than one where you have agency in the events of the world, even if your agency is informed by things exclusively out of your control. So i guess this is my personal Russell's teapot.
With this in mind, when choosing a moral system to work to enforce, punishment for going against this moral system is an absurd notion. (imo) belief in moral systems that also assume free will is what leads to all the fucked up justifications for why the moral system is being breached. Hierarchies in a general sense are the best example of this, because they place certain things below others based on either free will or inherent qualities that are beyond anyone's control, like punishing poor people for being poor because surely they'd have just pulled up their bootstraps if they were worthy of wealth, or eating sentient life is fine because might makes right or human tastebuds take priority or any other ridiculous reason btw :im-vegan:.
So i guess calling living things god-like moral actors is a bit misleading because what I mean is that living things have both the capability to greatly impact the reality around them, while also being results of the reality themselves.
This all ties back to my first comment about "caring for other things" being whats special in this world despite the indifferent void that is the universe, because living things have the power to shape the universe while also not being guilty for it, just responsible The existence of evil people in the world in my mind then becomes a cosmic tragedy rather than some evil to be battled triumphed over with moral superiority, but is still just as important to fight for change in.
And if you are one of those people (who are supporting bad systems if im understanding your comment right) I don't blame you, and so am I because I also contribute to capitalism and other things throughout my daily life. But my hope is that teaching everyone who is like that how it is still evil, and this evil is dependent on things that can be improved starting right now, would lead to a truly anti-hierarchical and empathetic system for fixing the world we live in.
So: "I believe in a universe that doesn't care, and people who do."
You should probably also consider what the actual moral dilemmas that you face are for all the talk of the trolley problem have you ever met anyone who was in one