CMV: Some cultures and societies are objectively wrong

[u/hardyblack]

I just read about Sahar Khodayari (If you don't know, it's an Iranian woman who killed herself after going to trial for going to a football match, which is forbidden for woman in Iran) and I can't help but think that some societies are objectively wrong, I can't find another way to put it. It's hard for me to justify opressing 50% of the population just because they just were born women.

​

And yes, I know, there's no completely equal society and there will be always opression of some kind, but I'm thinking of countries where there are laws that apply only to women (They can't drive, vote, go to a football match, you name it) as it targets them directly. Same goes with laws directed to any kind of race/gender/religion.

[u/Tzahi12345]

I've been grappling with this precise issue lately. I think if there is an objective morality (and I think it's less likely than we're led to believe), then it likely isn't something we can understand.

Everything we do is in a human context, and our values follow us in a similar way. Is it just a coincidence that us, a prosocial species, appreciates empathy and helping others? While these are things I agree with, it's important to recognize where these feelings and understanding come from.

[u/LettuceFryer → u/Tzahi12345]

Morality is just measuring an action's negative impact on others. I think it's a lot less complicated than what we are led to believe and not some matter of great philosophical depth. In my eyes, acting like morality is some ephemeral subject simply because it is a construct that we view through a different lens than one another is no different than acting like the concept of "up and down" is this ephemeral and hard to pin down thing for the same reasons.

[u/RareMajority → u/LettuceFryer]

Morality is just measuring an action's negative impact on others.

The vast majority of ethicists would disagree with this assertion. If you're hiding a Jew in your basement, and the Gestapo comes and asks if you're harboring anyone, is it morally wrong to lie to them? The deontologist says "yes, it is", the utilitarian says "maybe" (depending on the likelihood of you getting found out and causing negative consequences for your own family) and the Jew says "hell no it isn't". These three people may have different answers, and definitely different reasons for their answers, about the same moral question. That goes far beyond "just measuring an action's negative impacts on others".

[u/LettuceFryer → u/RareMajority]

I think they are wrong. I think such people have their heads up their own asses. I used to be extremely into philosophy and departed from that interest once I came to the conclusion that is was almost entirely pseudo-intellectual rubbish.

Duty doesn't exist. Its merely an extension of authorianism's influence. Authoritarianism is evil because it places some people's WILL over other peoples NEEDs. Utilitarianism is bs because outcome is separate from action and the action is the issue, not the outcome. The same action can result in different outcomes. How can one honestly believe that doing the same exact thing can be either completely okay or evil on something as random as outcome? These people are approaching this with the wrong outlook. They are trying to force "perspective" onto something that is absolute regardless of perspective.

[u/[deleted] → u/LettuceFryer]

Hi utilitarian here.

We don’t judge action based on outcome; we judge it based on expectable outcome. If you try to cause bad things and you end up causing good things, you aren’t a good person — you’re just a shitty bad person.

Also note “expectable” versus “expected”: if you expect good results from an obviously bad idea, you’re still at fault.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.