People Twitter

That it conflicts. He's saying that if you believe that morality is relative and every person/culture has the difficult task of defining their own, it's ironic to be so aghast when people have reached different conclusions than you.

That it conflicts with the second viewpoint.

To add to this, morality can be entirely subjective, but yeah, of course if I see someone kicking puppies in the street I'll think: "That's intrinsically morally wrong." Before I try to play in the space of "there's no true morality and their perspective is as valid as mine."

If my subjective morality says that slavery is wrong, I don't care what yours says. If you try to keep slaves in the society I live in as well I want you kicked out and ostracized.

*humans

No, that is not the direct equivalence. The direct equivalence for 2. Would be something like

"But then they insist that being naked is never acceptable and is grotesque, and anyone that disagrees is a gross pervert"

That's where the inconsistency comes from

And yet when I walk into class with my dick and balls hanging out, they all get extremely offended and the coeds threaten to call the police.

Cancel culture today is out of control.

It's like they have no sense that other views exist, and opposing views do not constitute politics.

I think they point they are trying to make is that once you are very very wrong about something (in their mind), it's no longer a political position, it's just an immoral position. And if that's what they're saying, I disagree with it.

I'm not saying that there are no immoral positions, I'm saying that a position can be completely immoral and still be political. I hate when people use the phrase "it's just politics" as a shield, as though everyone else has to be OK with some incredibly shitty attitude they have, just because they have managed to also make it a political attitude.

And that's such a terrible superpower to give to politics, too: the ability to instantly legitimize a position simply because it falls under the domain of politics.

Not to long ago, the question of "should white children and black children be allowed to go to school together" was a political issue in the U.S. And I'd say that's still a political issue. It didn't magically become some other type of issue just because a few decades passed and we now agree that one side was completely wrong. The fact that it isn't actively being discussed anymore doesn't change the fact that it falls under the umbrella of political issues. It means that someone can have a political opinion and they have to be a real piece of shit to hold that opinion.

But they are moral arguments, unless politics is added into the discussion. Let me give you a different example. If I believe people are entitled to the fruits of their labor then that's a moral point. If I believe the government should enforce everyone getting their fruits, that's political.

If I were to believe abortion is wrong then that can be a moral point. However if I think the government should take a stand on the matter, that's political.

The owning class wants to be the only class doing politics. So they brainwash the proles into thinking politics is bad.

It's also a health issue. It involves choices about life, not unlike someone in a coma or another situation where they are unable to make a conscious choice about whether to continue or deny treatment.

One argument in favor of abortion I recall reading was comparing it to donating an organ while you're still alive. You are under no obligation of donating anything, of risking your life to save another, even if you are literally the only person on Earth that can save the other. If medical professionals have to respect those choices, they should also respect the choice of mothers who decide to end an undesired pregnancy

Not disagreeing that they're probably just inconsistent.

Is it possible to be consistent about moral relativism & still make firm choices?

What's it called when morality is construed as systems of arbitrarily chosen axioms & moral judgements amount to judges stating whether something agrees with a system they chose? Is it inconsistent to acknowledge that these axioms are ultimately choices, choose a system, and judge all actions eligible for moral consideration according to that chosen system?

I just commented elsewhere in this thread, but isn't moral realism a thing for this exact situation? Is his post not a self report on his inability to identify a moral framework that fits his students worldview, or at least to explain the harm that arises if one has a self contradictory worldview and help them realize that and potentially arrive at a more consistent view? Seems like this comment section is filled with a lot of people that understand their moral framework more than this professor, but obviously are not in the field. Can you please elaborate on the issues here? Like I think abortions are fine, but I understand that others think it's murder. I don't think they're bad people for that, but I understand if they think I'm a bad person for my views. How we deal with it on a societal level is obviously even more complicated. I don't see how there's a problem there.

It seems like ALL is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. Do they really believe ALL morality is relative and are also always insanely judgy if things contradict their beliefs?

They used to be the case that just calling your political opponents evil was oversimplifying. But these days? They literally are just evil in the most cruel ways imaginable to the point where there's nothing to debate, and people who do so are doing so in bad faith most of the time. I think that's another dimension of the situation, a poorly moderate websites like Twitter make it so that people are constantly in a hostile environment where good faith cannot be assumed so you have to learn to operate in that kind of environment

i consider this specific example to also be an issue of language, which is in itself a construct.

Murder as a word has meaning based in law, which is another construct.

If you were to switch out "murder" for "killing" the outcome remains the same (cessation of life by another party) but the ethical and moral connotations are different.

Some people use murder when they mean killing and vice versa which adds a layer of complexity and confusion.

Though all of that could just be me venturing into pedant country.

in fact, that "murder is wrong" in in fact not a universally held belief. 20 billion animals wait solely sothat we can murder them eventually to consume their physical remains.

I wonder how much of that is a change in who is going to college and why, and what the requirements are. More people are being funneled into colleges that previously would have gone directly into the workforce or into an apprenticeship. Is your class a gen ed? Gen Ed's have really expanded and if you listen to bleeding hearts like me it's a good thing because it exposes people to new things, but I think it's actually so poorly managed that people end up taking the classes they think will be the least rigorous regardless of their actual interest just to get them over with.

That is the same sentiment my music teacher had 15 years ago and the same sentiment his music teacher did before that. I don’t think it’s illustrating the times as much as just that teaching is a tough and thankless job and most people aren’t interested in learning