artifactsofchina@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 3 days agoIf you argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also own investment properties?message-squaremessage-square130fedilinkarrow-up1134arrow-down111
arrow-up1123arrow-down1message-squareIf you argue for a cause like affordable housing for everyone, is it necessarily hypocritical if you also own investment properties?artifactsofchina@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 3 days agomessage-square130fedilink
minus-squareBlameThePeacock@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day ago“universally appalling” despite it literally having supporters arguing over it for over a thousand years… Just because your class of idealist youth didn’t like it doesn’t make it universally appalling.
minus-squareBlameThePeacock@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·19 hours agoYour question didn’t require an answer, since it answered itself.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·16 hours agoso you’re saying it’s just straight up moral relativism, a theory of ethics that doesn’t actually allow any questioning of morality, like divine command theory.
minus-squareBlameThePeacock@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 hours agoThat’s only one variation of moral relativism. It is, as most things in ethics are, not black and white.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 hours agoyour version is no more defensible than divine command theory, and it’s totally useless for debating what we ought to think is moral.
minus-squareBlameThePeacock@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·5 hours agoI already stated what I believe to be moral in this situation, and how I arrived at that conclusion.
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 hours ago…with all the authority of a Bible thumper.
“universally appalling” despite it literally having supporters arguing over it for over a thousand years…
Just because your class of idealist youth didn’t like it doesn’t make it universally appalling.
this isn’t an answer
Your question didn’t require an answer, since it answered itself.
so you’re saying it’s just straight up moral relativism, a theory of ethics that doesn’t actually allow any questioning of morality, like divine command theory.
That’s only one variation of moral relativism. It is, as most things in ethics are, not black and white.
your version is no more defensible than divine command theory, and it’s totally useless for debating what we ought to think is moral.
I already stated what I believe to be moral in this situation, and how I arrived at that conclusion.
…with all the authority of a Bible thumper.