Anamnesis

Somehow this is such a Ken M response lol

We always dyed real eggs and hunted a mix of the real eggs and the plastic ones with candy in them.

They get antsy if they haven't had any university students to run over for a while. Come on, there's gotta be a new sophomore they can hit at 72 miles per hour, isn't there?

I mean, "Super Troopers" is right there for you to use

Remember back when Israel claimed its first bombing of a hospital was an accident? Somehow that's just a thing they do on purpose now.

Thanks bro, had read it in Plato but was on a real King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard kick when I signed up for Lemmy (still am).

Butwhy.gif

This honestly makes me feel a lot better. If the second Trump admin is anything like the first it'll only kill a million Americans with a middling response to a pandemic disease while it fumbles around incompletely and issues a bunch of offensive pronouncements. I'm serious, things could be worse.

Here in Seattle we have a good four months before we start complaing about the (80°) heat.

A lot of what you said here is an implication of subjectivism, but not an argument for it. Subjectivism about morality is no more an implication of an empiricist worldview than subjectivism about the shape of the Earth.

What you're suggesting here sounds a lot like the logical positivists' position on ethics. The descriptive is falsifiable, the normative is not, so it must be subjective. The problem with that view is that we can't draw neat lines between the normative and the descriptive. If I'm attempting to model the world descriptively, I'm still going to be guided by normative considerations about what constitutes a good model. Science is not purely empirical, and ethics is not purely normative. Philosophy in general is not a discrete subject, separate from science. The two are continuous.

And we've known since Plato that God doesn't play into it, one way or the other.

I think the issue is that students aren't consistent. They'll fall back on relativism or subjectivism when they don't really have a strong opinion, or perceive there to be a lot of controversy about the subject that they don't want to have to argue about. But fundamentally, whether there's an objective and universal answer to some moral question or not really doesn't depend on whether there's controversy about it, or whether it's convenient or cool to argue about.

I think that there are parts of morality that really are culturally relative and subjective, and parts that aren't. Variation in cultural norms is totally okay, as long as we don't sacrifice the objective, universal stuff. (Like don't harm people unnecessarily, etc.). The contours of the former and the latter are up for debate, and we shouldn't presume that anybody knows the exact boundary.

I think this is a bit too simple. Suppose I say that moral badness, the property, is any action that causes people pain, in the same way the property of redness is the quality of surfaces that makes people experience the sensation of redness. If this were the case, morality (or at least moral badness) would absolutely not be a subjective property.

Whether morality is objective or subjective depends on what you think morality is about. If it's about things that would exist even if we didn't judge them to be the way they are, it's objective. If it's about things that wouldn't exist unless we judge them to be the way they are, it's subjective.