People Twitter

8833 readers

1363 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

1022

An ethics professor at Cambridge talks about teaching ethics in 2025 (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

207 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just because its easy to get a bunch of humans to agree say murder is wrong, doesn't mean you can call that objective.

The reason humans and ants differ so much in morality is because of the difference in the subjective experience of being a person versus being an ant.

If morality is subjective, you'd expect creatures with similar subjective experiences to agree with each other.

You'd expect one subjective blob of rules to conform to human biology/sociology and a separate blob of subjective rules to apply to antkind with no real way to interface between the two.

[+] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

and you base that expectation on what?

hopes and dreams?

I'm sorry, what?

this is predicated on a false assumption. you don’t know ants and humans experience different subjective experiences, you just strongly suspect it.

Sure, in the same way I have no knowledge of anything except "I think therefore I am".

If you apply this level of skepticism it's impossible to move beyind solipsism.

You're free to apply that standard, I wouldn't be able to prove knowledge beyond it and then all conversation stops here.

If you'll at least grant me a mutual belief in the external world so we can probe it and collect empirical data we can "pretend" is knowledge then we can build up a more interesting philosophy beyond "I don't believe anything exists at all but me".

knowing =/= suspecting. which is why you follow this illogic down to an incorrect conclusion of your “expectation.”

No, I follow it because out of utility I'd like a more useful philosophy than solipsism.

the greatest challenge of our age is dispelling the victorian myth that knowledge of the real world is untouchable to us.

What? That's literally what you just argued? Now you're trying to dispel it?

the distinction between you and other does exist, but we are not locked out of the world. we can deduce real facts about things outside our perception.

Why should I not respond "this is predicated on a false assumption. you don’t know real facts outside your perception you just strongly suspect it."?

You just flipped your argument around 180 degrees?