183
this seems relative
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
183 points (99.5% liked)
PhilosophyMemes
633 readers
4 users here now
Memes must be related to phil.
The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ok but what if morality is subjective..? My morals say that killing puppies is bad, and people who do it are bad.
But with universalism, killing a Nazi is bad. Because it's killing. With universalism, humanity is attempting to assign intent to the universe and say that the natural state of being for morality is that killing is bad. It's simply not true. Perhaps in most cases, but not all. That's not universalism, by definition.
Am I woefully misunderstanding something here ..?
Morality is subjective.
Well with objective universalism, killing is good, as unlife is the most common state of existence, it can never be immoral to unalive something.
If the universe has intent, it clearly is moving all things towards low entropy unlife, and as such unaliving is to carry out a moral good, and always moral, no?
/s
I know you're taking a piss, but why would forcing all things to be the same be necessarily moral?
When arguing for a universal intent, it's typically argued as virtuous/moral to further that intent, or at least immoral to go against that intent.
The conclusions are bunk because the premise is bunk.
Ah. I suppose that makes some sense but yeah the whole premise of universal intent is just silly.