631–640 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I seriously doubt he would approve of Christianity as practiced in general.
non-believers always seem to be the expert in that sort of thing
I can read, and I have read the whole thing, several times, I know what Jesus taught. And it's perfectly obvious that very few so called Christians even come close.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please read the guidelines, particularly these ones, and make an effort to observe them in future.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
[flagged]
(It currently has 276 replies, and I don't think any of them are about Polymarket or prediction markets, which is what the article is about.)
Please read the guidelines, particularly these ones, and make an effort to observe them in future.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44126652 and marked it off topic.
[flagged]
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
[edit] ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'm not saying it feels that way i'm saying it is that way, and i also think you know it to be true, but don't want acknowledge that due to further conclusions that can be drawn from that truth so we aren't agreeing at all, in any way: you don't want to believe in an objective morality for your own reasons, I acknowledge it despite the inconveniences it presents me
The point is that I sometimes wonder, if I were born in ancient Rome, wouldn't I have also felt, just as deeply, that defending family honor with violence was righteous? Not in a barbaric way, just in a 'this is obviously the right thing to do' kind of way? It's not that there's no such thing as right and wrong, it's that what counts as 'moral clarity' seems to shift, and everyone thinks they're the ones seeing it cl…
Pointing out the lack of precision and accidental aspects of custom in discussing morality is typically used as an excuse for immoral behavior, often personal.
Today, I don't view moral certainty as a primary or even secondary moral problem. Instead, I view it our primary moral problem as the idea that: "there are no absolute moral principles."
This is a self-contradictory statement, as a moments reflection will make apparent. Most people who advocate it either haven't thought about it or are sophists attempting to smuggle in a different absolute moral principle: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Say what one will about this latter absolute moral principle, but at least it's a self-consistent ethos. I can understand why the rich, powerful and debased should prefer to see it established, as they have. A (bad) part of me certainly prefers it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that I sometimes wonder, if I were born in ancient Rome, wouldn't I have also felt, just as deeply, that defending family honor with violence was righteous? Not in a barbaric way, just in a 'this is obviously the right thing to do' kind of way? It's not that there's no such thing as right and wrong, it's that what counts as 'moral clarity' seems to shift, and everyone thinks they're the ones seeing it cl…
_shrug_ Pointing out the lack of precision and accidental aspects of custom in discussing morality is typically used as an excuse for immoral behavior, often personal. Today, I don't view moral certainty as a primary or even secondary moral problem. Instead, I view it our primary moral problem as the idea that: "there are no absolute moral principles." This is a self-contradictory statement, as a moments reflection w…
I guess I just don't see it the same way. When I examine the most immoral acts, I see moral certainty being a necessary component.
The Spanish Inquisition: "For the good of their souls."
Stalinist purges: "To protect the revolution."
U.S. manifest destiny: "To civilize the savages."
Terrorist movements: "In the name of God."
When I examine the faults of moral relativism I see the blandness of inaction at worst - "I suppose that's what works for them."
At an individual level, I see cynicism as the defining feature of immorality - "No one else is doing good, so why should I?" or "If I don't do bad, someone else will," but these aren't based in relativism. Relativism or absolutism simply isn't part of the moral calculus.
If anything the relativistic approach is harder than then absolutist one. An absolutist may have the burden of knowing what actions are right and wrong within a moral framework, but someone who is a relativist wanting to do good doesn't even have that. They have the additional burden of having to perform meta-ethics from which to derive ethical positions. I hate to turn this into an "I have it worse," discussion, but the grass ain't always greener.
It may be surprising to learn that moral relativists even have a history of taking moral positioning and opposing atrocities. Franz Boas opposed scientific racism, eugenics, and the use of anthropology to justify colonial domination and publicly condemned anthropologists who collaborated with the U.S. military. Ruth Benedict argued that morality is culture-bound and opposed Western ethnocentrism and the moral superiority claimed by colonial powers while critiquing the racism behind Nazism in her wartime work The Races of Mankind. Finally, Margaret Mead promoted tolerance of cultural diversity and critiqued Western sexual and gender norms. She used her platform to oppose war, advocate for civil rights. My point is that one can be a relativist and take a strong moral position - one I'd be surprised either of us would be opposed to.