[ SECRET POST #3031 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3031 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.











Notes:

Going to be a late day, so early secrets!

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 035 secrets from Secret Submission Post #433.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Ah well fair enough in that case. I don't think that's a coherent position; I don't think you're really talking like a moral relativist, or that your words are compatible with saying the term is ever acceptable.

But that's not specific to you, I don't think moral relativism is a really coherent position in general. And that probably leads us to an argument that's too broad for some place like this.

Re: OP

[blitzwing]

I don't think you're really talking like a moral relativist

That's stereotyping.

or that your words are compatible with saying the term is ever acceptable.

Acknowledging that blue is X is not a statement that X is bad. You're just (I assume) so used to thinking of (X = bad), that you assume someone saying (blue = X) is saying (blue = bad). You're projecting your own beliefs about X onto other people, as if other people couldn't think (blue = X, X = neutral) or (blue = X, X = good).

[Where "blue" is a stand-in for "classist microaggressions" or any other term]

I don't think moral relativism is a really coherent position in general.

And I don't think most moral absolutist systems can be argued for logically, but you don't see me bashing on them. To each his own.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I am sorry if I came across as bashing anything; all I meant to get across was that I think we've reached a point where our fundamental divisions are probably unbridgeable without getting into a heavy discourse on basic ethical principle.

I think my point of view (if you care) is that moral relativism more or less collapses into moral nihilism. I don't think that's an argument against it - I think it's a very real possibility. But my argument would be that I don't think the view that the goodness or badness of any given phenomenon (for instance, classist microaggression) is basically indeterminate and down to the particular system of values of a given individual is compatible with using the language of morality and moral judgment. I can acknowledge the possibility that the goodness or badness of things is only in relation to the preferences of an individual - I just don't think, if that's the case, we're really talking about morality anymore. And I think (for instance) your language is moral language that's writing moral-judgment checks.

But, again, this is an argument on a fundamental point of ethical theory that I don't think we're going to resolve over fandomsecrets.

Re: OP

[blitzwing]

I just don't think, if that's the case, we're really talking about morality anymore

And that's fine, you can talk about things without delving into the deeper ethics of them. There may be a fine line between moral relativism and moral nihilism: if it helps you to think of me as coming from a moral nihilist perspective, that's fine.

And I think (for instance) your language is moral language that's writing moral-judgment checks.

If you could point out where I put a moral value judgement on the trash thing, you might be right, but you can't, so...I think you're just having a hard time separating your moral opinions about those things and are projecting that onto other people.

But, again, this is an argument on a fundamental point of ethical theory that I don't think we're going to resolve over fandomsecrets.

Don't underestimate fandomsecrets. If you don't want to discuss ethics here, that's cool, but some of my best discussions on meta-ethics have occurred on anon memes.