Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

    • Kalash@feddit.ch
      1·
      1 year ago

      That definition perfectly aligns with what I just told you and directly contradicts your point.

      There is such a thing as objective morality, or moral truth

      Then please tell me how I it can be factually messured or observed. I’m waiting.

      • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        We don’t have any measure by which to determine what is or is not moral truth. Still doesn’t make it any less real.

        To give an analogy - whether or not there is some all-powerful being controlling everything in the universe. We have no way to measure whether or not there is. But there is still an objective truth. There either is, or there is not. Our inability to measure or determine it does not make the truth any less real. It simply means we do not know.

        • Kalash@feddit.ch
          1·
          1 year ago

          We don’t have any measure by which to determine what is or is not moral truth.

          I agree. But that is because moral truth is something that can’t be messured because it is not objective in the first place.

          To give an analogy - whether or not there is some all-powerful being controlling everything in the universe. We have no way to measure whether or not there is. But there is still an objective truth.

          No, the very fact that you can’t messure it means it’s not objectivly true. It’s unknowable. Hypothetical. It’s literally the opposite of objective.