americanslyme95 t1_irxw2mz wrote
Reply to comment by MyNameIsNonYaBizniz in "[Moral] theories started out on the wrong foot, by treating morality and immorality as intrinsic to the actions themselves, instead of our responses to them." Philosopher Alex Rosenberg on whether moral disputes can be resolved by [deleted]
>1000 years ago most groups believe women should have less rights than men, it changed over time as more and more groups are convinced that this is a bad idea and eventually it became the dominant moral consensus to give women equal rights, a few groups not agreeing to this mean little but to prove that morality is still a consensus, the only difference is localized consensus or widespread consensus.
By your definition, then, people 1000 years ago who believed women should have fewer rights than men were right, by virtue of the fact that their position held group consensus. They were also right about slavery, slaughtering their enemies, etc.
This to me is a preoccupation with what seems moral, to a specific group at a specific time, rather than what is moral. Is your claim that there is no actual morality, just preferences about what appears moral from a given perspective?
MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_irye7cf wrote
As said, there is no "right" or "wrong" in moral consensus, only what the majority of a group will agree to uphold and defend.
You are still conflating moral consensus with some kind of objective "rightness" or "wrongness", these things dont exist in reality.
Morality can never be objective, because you cant find them in laws of physics or fabric of reality, its a subjective human concept developed through group consensus, that's it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments