balderdash@lemmy.zip to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoMoralitylemmy.zipimagemessage-square55fedilinkarrow-up1261arrow-down133
arrow-up1228arrow-down1imageMoralitylemmy.zipbalderdash@lemmy.zip to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square55fedilink
minus-squareneptune@dmv.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·1 year agoThis sounds like Goedels theorem. How could a philosophy be consistent and have an opinion about every moral topic?
minus-squareAnamnesis@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year agoI’m not sure morality would have the same problems with recursion that math has.
minus-squareneptune@dmv.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·1 year agoI’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-up3·1 year agoWhy 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.
minus-squareHappyRedditRefugee@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoYooo. You are onto something here.
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.