balderdash@lemmy.zip to Memes@lemmy.ml · 3 年前Moralitylemmy.zipimagemessage-square48linkfedilinkarrow-up1259arrow-down133
arrow-up1226arrow-down1imageMoralitylemmy.zipbalderdash@lemmy.zip to Memes@lemmy.ml · 3 年前message-square48linkfedilink
minus-squareneptune@dmv.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·3 年前This sounds like Goedels theorem. How could a philosophy be consistent and have an opinion about every moral topic?
minus-squareAnamnesis@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·3 年前I’m not sure morality would have the same problems with recursion that math has.
minus-squareneptune@dmv.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·3 年前I’m not sure it’s the SAME but if there were a system of created ethics that were able to speak to everything and do so consistently… Wouldn’t we know?
minus-squareAnamnesis@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·3 年前Why would we? Ethics can be just as opaque as any other subject. It took us thousands of years to get economics, psychology, etc. to where they are.
This sounds like Goedels theorem. How could a philosophy be consistent and have an opinion about every moral topic?
I’m not sure morality would have the same problems with recursion that math has.
I’m not sure it’s the SAME but if there were a system of created ethics that were able to speak to everything and do so consistently… Wouldn’t we know?
Why would we? Ethics can be just as opaque as any other subject. It took us thousands of years to get economics, psychology, etc. to where they are.
Yooo. You are onto something here.