• pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think we’re coming to any sort of agreement here.

    You believe there’s a universal set of morals, and I believe individuals’ morals are determined by environment (time, place, morals of others around the individual, etc.) and ultimately come together to form a collective understanding of morality for that point in time and those within that cultural environment.

    That aside, concluding that I’m “tolerant of intolerance” is both disingenuous and incorrect. I believe that culture dictates morality, and I respect that other cultures are allowed to have their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I choose to agree with them. I don’t consider any of your examples permissible under my own moral code.

    I also accept that I am not the universal standard, and that it would be hypocritical to impose my own beliefs on demographics with a different moral code. To override the moral autonomy of others1 in a crusade for moral righteousness would be an unjust act in itself. Or in layman’s idiom, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    1 Others, plural. Not individuals who are exceptional to the moral concensus of their surroundings (i.e. murderers)

    • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe we seek to arrive at universal morals. When we discuss atrocities, I don’t see any reason to frame concerns for the well-being of others as personal preference. Their well-being is outside myself. The concern is for their own sake, not mine. I think you’re in contradiction because you are once again saying you don’t get to override the moral autonomy of others but simultaneously concede that you oppose atrocities that the moral autonomy of others permit. If I had the option to stop another society (where the majority of that society are in agreement on the action) from engaging in arbitrary genocide of their own citizens, I’d do that. The idea that you would find my action to stop them less permissible than their own tells me you lack conviction for your own values.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Correct. I, and nobody else, should be permitted to override the moral autonomy of others. Atrocities have already been performed under the line of reasoning that the persecutors’ beliefs are objectivity superior to those that they are persecuting, and this is not something that we should aspire to repeat in the current day. Two moral wrongs—persecuting those that are persecuting others—does not make a moral right.

        If the goal in your hypothetical scenario were solely to provide refuge and safe haven for willing members of said society, then I would have no problem with that. You would not be overriding moral beliefs; refugees would simply be voluntarily defecting from their own.

        If your goal is to stop the genocide by destabilizing the society and installing your own set of moral beliefs in its place, then it would no longer be permissible.

        • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well homie I appreciate the bullet bite but I don’t know how to fix you - you not only feel no need to endorse the ending of genocide - even for the marginalized in societies outside your own, you actively discourage and look down upon interfering with genocide. I don’t know if you have the capacity to engage as a member of society, and frankly you may be a danger to it. Maybe you get the boot out of Athens 😵‍💫

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            We can agree to disagree on our differing views of morality, I guess.

            With regards to genocide, it’s a tough topic. We both agree that it’s wrong, but we don’t agree on how to approach it. I come from the perspective that there isn’t a baseline for morality and that it’s amoral to foist a subjective standard on others. You come from the perspective that there exists a universal standard for morality, and that it is amoral to allow societies to deviate from it.

            Two diametrically opposed viewpoints that can’t be reconciled at this point in time. Maybe, in the future, if we have a unified global “culture” and moral relativism and cultural relativism are indistinguishable, we might be able to come to some agreement. Until then, you do you, and I do me.

            • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              We can agree to disagree on our differing views of morality, you do you, and I do me.

              I’m a moral objectivist, I literally won’t do that 🤣