@:blank: @nprofile1q... this is funny but the principles underlying jsonld existed before jsonld

@nprofile1q... 2 doesn't exist ontologically until you describe it. morals are much the same. if there were no persons in the universe then what morals exist? you introduce moral actors by ascribing moral properties to them, which require a context to be qualified

> i don't think the concept of the universe applying morality in the same way for all people is farfetched

what does the universe say morally about homosexuality or putting ice cream in your back pocket? who speaks for the universe?

i mean, when you fall off a cliff, you can reason about physics or gravity up until the point that you die. what does moral reasoning do in a universal sense? "civilization"? the morals of that civilization depend on the civilization's values. one civilization ends, another begins, there need not be moral continuity between the two

@nprofile1q... i was making a social media post not a formal philosophical argument but okay 😇

btw "2" is a symbol that can represent anything linguistically, and the concepts that it represents doesn't have a truth value either (unless you count "truthiness" coercion in dynamic languages, where 0 is "false"). this is likewise not objective because "2" has to be contextualized like any other symbol in a processing context. trinitarian christians might say "three is one" and take that to be a profound universal truth, but even if you agree in-context, you might disagree arithmetically. try making that statement in a programming language and you get "false".

mostly the thing i am commenting on is the idealism and also the strange coincidence that the universal ideal just so happens to align with whoever is stating it. it's not me saying this, it's the universe which is objectively true and agrees with me and is my friend. i can't take responsibility for any of my beliefs or statements because i am only describing a universal truth. i'm just a messenger, i don't make the rules, etc.

@nprofile1q... maybe this is just the classical moral objectivist vs relativist argument but if you're a relativist the idea that morals are objective is already something you disagree with, and the idea that morals have a truth value is likewise inconsistent

being a relativist doesn't justify immoral actions, it just attributes them to something other than the universe. morals are ideals that require some kind of application to be effective. the very fact that people *can* disagree on what is moral is enough to disprove the idea that they are universal (if they were truly universal they would be self-evident and not require agreement)

this isn't even a marxist thing imo, it's just the realization that you aren't the universe (because it's pretty curious how the objective moral truth just so happens to be the thing i agree with)

@nprofile1q... i get that the bottom text is theoryslop but i was more commenting about the absurdity of the top text

@nprofile1q...

> objectively morally false

:lain_confused:

@Blurry Moon i'm talking about people you know personally, too

@Blurry Moon which platform

@Blurry Moon they already have, haven't they?

@nprofile1q... the great perl revival vs the gopocalypse

@Blurry Moon they are both guys, one guy is roleplaying as a nazi but is actually a nazi and is asking the other guy to roleplay being black (the other guy is not black)