Imma like! More thoughtful philosophy channels that are not simply relying on flashy aesthetics while avoiding nuance to push a particular view that will attract the most likes are welcome imo. And to add to the discussion: I think it's worth stressing that moralism is strictly about what is good and evil. Things can be good/bad, or right/wrong in an amoral sense. For instance, the words "bad" or "wrong" may be used in the context of a soccer game in the case of an offence resulting in a penalty, but it wouldn't be in a moral sense. This would also apply to most cultural norms. Another thing I think people get mixed up is the difference between post-metaphysics/amoralism, and relativism. An amoralist recognizing ethics as an ideological and historical construct, is not a moral relativist. Moral relativists still believe there is good and evil; they're still moralists. Thinkers who reject morality don't think that good and evil is relative; they reject the notion of good/evil to begin with.
8:30 I feel like this is a poor example because most American's wouldn't eat Guinea pig because Guinea pigs are generally pets, so thus eating them makes people uncomofrtable, but that doesn't mean they morally oppose it. A more potent example is the consumption of cat and dog meat, which I don't see an issue with even if I wouldn't do it myself (Assuming the animals were raised in an ethical manner), and generally this is a standard sentiment in American culture.
Well I dunno for certain, but I think there is an objective morality of sorts, that is to say a set of conditions best able to achieve the maximum welfare of our species in balance with the survival of the environment as a whole. However we can never achieve or even understand what this is because we are clouded by our own relative situation.
![How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TYAKHLrr51w/mqdefault.jpg)
![How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
Great video!
Imma like! More thoughtful philosophy channels that are not simply relying on flashy aesthetics while avoiding nuance to push a particular view that will attract the most likes are welcome imo.
And to add to the discussion: I think it's worth stressing that moralism is strictly about what is good and evil. Things can be good/bad, or right/wrong in an amoral sense. For instance, the words "bad" or "wrong" may be used in the context of a soccer game in the case of an offence resulting in a penalty, but it wouldn't be in a moral sense. This would also apply to most cultural norms.
Another thing I think people get mixed up is the difference between post-metaphysics/amoralism, and relativism. An amoralist recognizing ethics as an ideological and historical construct, is not a moral relativist. Moral relativists still believe there is good and evil; they're still moralists. Thinkers who reject morality don't think that good and evil is relative; they reject the notion of good/evil to begin with.
Bibliografia de apoio Roberto!..... please
8:30 I feel like this is a poor example because most American's wouldn't eat Guinea pig because Guinea pigs are generally pets, so thus eating them makes people uncomofrtable, but that doesn't mean they morally oppose it. A more potent example is the consumption of cat and dog meat, which I don't see an issue with even if I wouldn't do it myself (Assuming the animals were raised in an ethical manner), and generally this is a standard sentiment in American culture.
Well I dunno for certain, but I think there is an objective morality of sorts, that is to say a set of conditions best able to achieve the maximum welfare of our species in balance with the survival of the environment as a whole. However we can never achieve or even understand what this is because we are clouded by our own relative situation.