Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    2·
    1 year ago

    You could for example take an utilitarian approach and then the objectively better decision would be the decision that leads to less suffering in total.

    Simply because it is practically impossible for us humans to calculate the “total of suffering”, doesn’t mean this total does not exist. It objectively does exist for every given decision. Perhaps there are exceptions where there is equal suffering for all decisions. But that still wouldn’t make it a subjective observation.

    Arguably, the Aztec had an even bigger lack of information. For example by assuming that human sacrifices are a necessity. Or that women don’t suffer when they are treated as lesser.

    Suffering is an objectively “real” thing in our universe. Unless you also want to debate whether pain or the human existence is real.

    This seems like an axiom of ethics: less suffering is good. Because why would more suffering be good?

    This seems like it leaves us with the option to either decide actively against what is good, or make decisions randomly. Random would be if you don’t consider whether a decision increases or decreases suffering / well-being. I am a total lay person for philosophy but this almost makes it seem like it’s a logical fallacy to assume ethics (on a base level) are subjective. We must assume something to make a decision. And your decision always leads to an increase or decrease in suffering. Therefore all decisions are on an objective scale of mortality…?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      11·
      1 year ago

      What is worse, blowing someone up on a battlefield or capturing them and sacrificing them later? I’d say the latter because the death is relatively quick and painless and included a soporific to calm the victim down. The latter was what the Aztecs did. Their wars were for capturing prisoners, not killing enemies. I don’t know… that sounds like their sacrifices are more moral than blowing someone’s legs off and letting them bleed out. I’d call the latter a lot more moral than the former. Because less suffering is good, right?

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        3·
        1 year ago

        This is a very superficial view on the matter. You would have to consider all factors.

        Which practices lead to more trauma? To more future victims? What are the long-term consequences for the future? Does one decision lead to more suffering in humans 3000 years in the future for some reason? Etc. Objectively, one way is the better one. We just don’t know which one it is.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            2·
            1 year ago

            I would say we can’t in most cases know exactly or even approximately what is the objectively morally better decision. But that doesn’t make it less objective. It just makes it hard or perhaps even impossible to know.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                2·
                1 year ago

                Because for something to be considered objective the only necessary condition is that how something is lies entirely with the object itself and not with the person(s) looking at it. Whether or not we can measure it in actuality doesn’t matter for that definition.

                Consider you could wire every existing person up to some kind of device that measures their physical and psychological pain and gives out a number, it doesn’t matter who looks at it, it would obviously always be the same number.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  You think everyone has the same levels of physical and psychological pain tolerance? Nonsense. I have trigeminal neuralgia. I’m would bet my pain tolerance is objectively a hell of a lot higher than yours at this point.