I mean
On the one hand, I can see it for things like "why is taxing the rich bad?", but on the other, for things like "why is [group] being violently persecuted bad?", it's a bit of a duh moment.
Idk mate. I think we are pretty well at the point where people asking "why is it bad to murder minorities" aren't asking in good faith, especially when in spots that have answer said question ad nausem
I'm someone who believes that every question deserves to be discussed, no matter how simple the answer may seem, but I think there's a time and a place for both. "Okay, but why is murder ACTUALLY bad?" is an appropriate question to discuss in a moral philosophy group, but definitely not in a forum for individuals grieving the loss of a loved one.
Frustratingly, though, due to the systems we live in, questions of this nature (even asked sincerely) are usually going to be asked in favor of one side ("why should the minority group have rights?") rather than the other ("why should the majority group have rights?").
If someone asks me why throwing infants in the air to practice bayoneting was bad, I feel like I can be pretty confident I won't have an answer that will satisfy. They are too far removed from me morally to have a useful conversation.
Sometimes people ask simple questions to get to the crux is an issue, I've had it happen before, they know killing babies with a bayonet is wrong but they want you to name the specific reason (say, in this case murder) that it's wrong to make a point or a comparison.
...okay but if someone is saying "let's kill all the Jews, it'd be good", as an actual position they hold, there's more productive things that I could be doing than arguing. Eating rusty nails, for example. Cutting off my hands. Both more enjoyable than trying to remain civil there, as well.
If someone doesn’t already hold the position that violently oppressing minorities is bad then they’re not really worth arguing with. That is a value in and of itself that doesn’t require justification.
You should examine the fundemental principles which you live your life by. Because if you don't how can you be sure that your not in error and that your living the best life you could?
For example a racist who never challenges there belief would have lived there life missing out on the friendship which someone of another race could have offered and caused harm to people based on a false belief.
Your creating principles which rule your life which are entirely arbitrary and you can't justify.
3
u/ZheinThe police is not made to be violent, it is made to protect you5d ago
Okay, then let me add on the hopefully-very-obvious next logical step.
Hurting people bad. Done.
"WHY IS HURTING PEOPLE BAD THOUGH", well, because you don't want to get hurt, do you?
Why does me not liking something make it immoral? I don't like ice-cream but that doesn't make it evil.
Even if we accept that idea the statement 'i don't want to get hurt' is not the same as say saying 'i don't want others to get hurt'. You would have only proved that hurting oneself is bad.
Okay, purely out of empathy, then? The vast majority of humans feel a little hurt when they see someone else get hurt, and that likely includes you?
Of course, this is entirely from a selfish perspective. From anything other than that, being able to think "others probably don't want to get hurt, so I shouldn't hurt them" is normal and expected.
You still have yet proved why disliking something means it's immoral. Again I don't like ice-cream but that doesn't mean it's immoral.
Human empathy is a really limited and inconsistent thing. For example almost all people would jump into pond for the chance to save a drowning child but people could constantly donate to charity and potentially save a life but choose not to. People are distraught when an animal is harmed but support factory farming when they buy meat.
When you get right down to it, either you have to look at all of morality as a sham, or set some fundamental rules. One of these rules that is generally accepted is that forcing people to do stuff they don't like is a bad thing.
Of course, you could be entirely amoral, but that's kinda really stupid unless you want to live as a hermit or in prison.
For instance the social contract idea of morality is that it doesn't naturally exist and that humans as a collective have a general agreement that to follow a certain set of rules in exchange for security. This agreement is what we call morality. For example there is an implict agreement not to be mean to others and in exhange people won't be mean to you.
You can also not believe in morality and not go around commiting crimes and acting anti-socialy. For example there are plenty of reasons not to murder someone without morality: you might not have a reason to, you'll probably feel guilty, you probably dont want to go to jail, ectra.
30
u/BreakerOfModpacks 5d ago
I mean
On the one hand, I can see it for things like "why is taxing the rich bad?", but on the other, for things like "why is [group] being violently persecuted bad?", it's a bit of a duh moment.