• JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 minutes ago

      They conflict. The first one is a form of moral relativism (that how you should act morally depends on your culture/upbringing).

      The second one is a form of moral absolutism (that there is a specific morality you should live by)

      Basically someone saying there’s no right answer while also saying they have the only right answer and everyone who disagrees with it is bad.

    • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 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?

        • C45513@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 minutes ago

          as someone who never studied ethics academically, this was also my guess.

      • III@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 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.