this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
836 points (99.3% liked)

People Twitter

6443 readers
1566 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 30 points 11 hours ago

What’s even funnier- is the amount of people in the comments here that perfectly illustrate the humor in the post without even understanding why.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Is he saying the first point is wrong or just that it conflicts with the second?

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 18 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

It seems like that tension between those things (which I'd expect are natural intuitions that many people experience) would be a foundational principle in ethics. Is it? Is that the joke?

[–] III@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Setting aside the unshakeable part, morality should be somewhat rigid. While relative, that doesn't mean morality can or should change on a whim.

[–] Famko@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago

That it conflicts with the second viewpoint.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 14 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see the problem. One can have unshakeable moral values they believe everyone should have while acknowledging those values may be a product of their upbringing and others' lack of them the same.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

What about the last part: "viewing disagreement as moral monstrosity?"

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 4 hours ago

I believe abortion is moral. I believe people who disagree are morally monstrous. I can also understand that their beliefs on whether abortion is moral or not can be a product of their culture and upbringing. What am I missing? Why is this odd?

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It's the kind of thing professors say when they want to go viral on some fascist platform.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 31 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I see no paradox here. Yes, the rubrics change over time, making morality relative, but the motivation (empathy) remains constant, meaning you can evaluate morality in absolute terms.

A simple analog can be found in chess, an old game that’s fairly well-defined and well-understood compared to ethics. Beginners in chess are sometimes confused when they hear masters evaluate moves using absolute terms — e.g. “this move is more accurate than that move.

Doesn’t that suggest a known optimum — i.e., the most accurate move? Of course it does, but we can’t actually know for sure what move is best until the game is near its end, because finding it is hard. Otherwise the “most accurate” move is never anything more than an educated guess made by the winningest minds/software of the day.

As a result, modern analysis is especially good at picking apart historic games, because it’s only after seeing the better move that we can understand the weaknesses of the one we once thought was best.

Ethical absolutism is similarly retrospective. Every paradigm ever proposed has flaws, but we absolutely can evaluate all of them comparatively by how well their outcomes express empathy. Let the kids cook.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago

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.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 16 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Kids thinking anything goes while also being incredibly close-minded is not new.

[–] easily3667@lemmus.org 11 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

There are no adults in the room.

Im 50. The only difference between me and a 12 year old is cancer scares and a bit more wisdom due to experience. Im convinced this is true for most people.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 27 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (7 children)

I've had people, presumably young, argue with me on here about politics and morals. For example, I say the right to abortion is a political issue. Been screamed out that it's not a political issue because a woman's right to an abortion is a moral issue. Yeah, I agree, but the argument is still political. Some believe abortion is murder and that they're right. That's politics.

It's like they have no sense that other views exist, and opposing views do not constitute politics. "I'm on the right side of this thing so it's not politics!" As if I'm somehow lowering the debate to mere... something?

That was one of the first things I got confused by on lemmy. Am I making sense? Just crawled in from work and I'm wasted tired.

[–] tuckerm@feddit.online 9 points 15 hours ago

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.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 16 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

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.

[–] OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com 11 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 11 points 20 hours ago

And making people believe preserving the status quo is not political but changing it is

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] tuckerm@feddit.online 16 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

Honestly, those two points don't seem incompatible to me. For example:

Teaching the history of fashion to undergrads in 1985 is bizarre because:

  1. They insist that standards of dress are entirely relative. Being dressed decently is a cultural construct; some cultures wear hardly any clothing whatsoever and being nude is a completely normal, default way of presenting yourself.
  2. 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.

(And yes I changed the year because I'm sick of so many of these issues being brought up as though "the kids these days" are the problem, when so often these are issues that have been around LITERALLY FOREVER.)

I'm not trying to dunk on this Henry Shelvin guy -- I'm certain that he knows a lot more about philosophy than me, and has more interesting thoughts about morals than I do. And I'm also not going to judge someone based on a tweet...aside from the obvious judgement that they are using Twitter, lol. But as far as takes go, this one kinda sucks.

*edit: I'll add that I hope this professor is taking this opportunity to explain what the difference is between morals being relative vs being subjective, which is an issue that has come up in this very thread. Especially since I bet a lot of his students have only heard the term "moral relativism" being used by religious conservatives who accuse you of being a moral relativist because you don't live by the Bible. I know that was definitely the case for me.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

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

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

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.

[–] tuckerm@feddit.online 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

We used to have academic freedom. Now we just have sensitivity trainings and PANTS. SHACKLES OF THE MIND, I TELL YOU!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Hah! Cool to see Henry pop up on my feed. I knew this guy back when he was a grad student. And as somebody that also teaches ethics, he is dead on. Undergrads are not only believe all morality is relative and that this is necessary for tolerance and pluralism (it's not), but are also insanely judgmental if something contradicts their basic sense of morality.

Turns out, ordinary people's metaethics are highly irrational.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 123 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (16 children)

Even if all morality is subjective or inter-subjective I have some very strong opinions about tabs vs spaces

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

post-structuralism has done a lot to attack the basic idea that something like "right" and "wrong" even exist in the first place, outside of the mind of the observer.

I'm kinda pissed about that btw.

[–] rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works 98 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's because moral relativism is cool when you live in a free and decent society.

The irony is that you can afford to debate morality when society is moral and you're not facing an onslaught of inhumanity in the form of fascism and unchecked greed that's threatening any hope for a future.

But when shit hits the fan, morality becomes pretty fucking clear. And that's what's happening right now. Philosophical debates about morality are out the window when you're facing an existential threat.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 21 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

And the evil guys are yelling that the other side is evil, while the other side is too good to call anyone evil 😔

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (18 children)

Morality is subjective. Ethics are an attempt to quanitify/codify popular/common moral beliefs.

Even "murder is wrong" is not a moral absolute. I consider it highly immoral to deny murder to someone in pain begging for another person like a physician to murder them painlessly simply because of a dogmatic "murder is wrong" stance.

[–] Senal@slrpnk.net 35 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

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.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›