No way, really?

I have a 40 hour work week. And two more jobs than are ten hours work per week. And I need to do these, or I don’t have health insurance and can’t afford my rent.

If only

I wonder if this is the app, or the age group? As a late 30s guy on Hinge, I don’t have a ton of trouble finding at least a few people to have a decent chat with every week, and it’s led to a decent number of dates and even a few long term relationships.

The part that’s bothering people is the “traumatized people can’t be responsible for other people’s comfort.” It sounds too much like “I’m sorry if my reaction made you uncomfortable, but I have trauma and so I’m not responsible.”

I think there are two ways of reading the claim that a traumatized person can’t be responsible for other peoples’ comfort. The first is reasonable: nobody is really responsible for anyone else’s comfort. We have to take care of ourselves at the end of the day, so mentally healthy people especially shouldn’t rely on traumatized people to make them comfortable.

The second is unreasonable: traumatized people, more than anyone, have no obligation to do the basic things that make other people comfortable, in virtue of their trauma.

I think the post just makes it sound a little too much like the second interpretation, because otherwise why focus on traumatized people in the first place? I think that’s what’s getting under most peoples’ skin.

I mean, the point of therapy is to work through your trauma in a way that allows you to avoid maladaptive behaviors, which might include being overly sensitive in situations where it isn’t appropriate and doesn’t help you. We can make some changes to accommodate the bad things that have happened to people, but having trauma doesn’t give you license to go around the world inflicting your emotions on everyone around you. Your mental illness is not your fault, but it is your responsibility, and all that.

Are there any good ones nowadays that don’t sound like a robot?

I guess this is supposed to be funny but it reads as sad and abusive to me.

We always dyed real eggs and hunted a mix of the real eggs and the plastic ones with candy in them.

Thanks bro, had read it in Plato but was on a real King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard kick when I signed up for Lemmy (still am).

A lot of what you said here is an implication of subjectivism, but not an argument for it. Subjectivism about morality is no more an implication of an empiricist worldview than subjectivism about the shape of the Earth.

What you’re suggesting here sounds a lot like the logical positivists’ position on ethics. The descriptive is falsifiable, the normative is not, so it must be subjective. The problem with that view is that we can’t draw neat lines between the normative and the descriptive. If I’m attempting to model the world descriptively, I’m still going to be guided by normative considerations about what constitutes a good model. Science is not purely empirical, and ethics is not purely normative. Philosophy in general is not a discrete subject, separate from science. The two are continuous.

And we’ve known since Plato that God doesn’t play into it, one way or the other.

I think the issue is that students aren’t consistent. They’ll fall back on relativism or subjectivism when they don’t really have a strong opinion, or perceive there to be a lot of controversy about the subject that they don’t want to have to argue about. But fundamentally, whether there’s an objective and universal answer to some moral question or not really doesn’t depend on whether there’s controversy about it, or whether it’s convenient or cool to argue about.

I think that there are parts of morality that really are culturally relative and subjective, and parts that aren’t. Variation in cultural norms is totally okay, as long as we don’t sacrifice the objective, universal stuff. (Like don’t harm people unnecessarily, etc.). The contours of the former and the latter are up for debate, and we shouldn’t presume that anybody knows the exact boundary.

I think this is a bit too simple. Suppose I say that moral badness, the property, is any action that causes people pain, in the same way the property of redness is the quality of surfaces that makes people experience the sensation of redness. If this were the case, morality (or at least moral badness) would absolutely not be a subjective property.

Whether morality is objective or subjective depends on what you think morality is about. If it’s about things that would exist even if we didn’t judge them to be the way they are, it’s objective. If it’s about things that wouldn’t exist unless we judge them to be the way they are, it’s subjective.

People have been arguing about whether morality is subjective, and writing dissertations about that subject, for thousands of years. Is any of us really familiar enough with that very detailed debate to render a judgment like “morality is subjective” as though it’s an obvious fact? Does anybody who just flatly says morality is subjective understand just how complex metaethics is?

https://images.app.goo.gl/fBQbi2J5osxuFmvt7

I think “morality is subjective” is just something we hear apparently worldly people say all the time, and nobody really has any idea.

By the way, I have a PhD in ethics and wrote my dissertation on the objectivity/subjectivity of ethics. Long story short, we don’t know shit!

Hah! Cool to see Henry pop up on my feed. I knew this guy back when he was a grad student. And as somebody that also teaches ethics, he is dead on. Undergrads are not only believe all morality is relative and that this is necessary for tolerance and pluralism (it’s not), but are also insanely judgmental if something contradicts their basic sense of morality.

Turns out, ordinary people’s metaethics are highly irrational.

Oh no! Anyway…

Every four dimensional puzzle is a time worm of puzzle pieces in a box and a fully assembled puzzle and everything in between.

Can’t say I disagree lol

A friend of mine works for an electric semi truck company. The vast majority of their parts are manufactured in Canada and Mexico; they’re just assembled in the US. His mom voted for Trump and really wants him to move back to Ohio so he can have space and be close to family. He wanted to go back, too, and had a transfer and promotion within the company set up before the election. Now there’s a company-wide freeze and his transfer is gone. The company’s internal financial projections are not good.

His mom refuses to recognize that she just voted for her son to stay in Seattle indefinitely, even though he wants to move back. She keeps thinking that any day now, the economy will be so booming that his company will be doing great. He can’t talk to her about it anymore.