Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social media is so toxic

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by bluGill on Thursday November 21, 2019 @02:31PM (#21598432)

NOTHING is objectively right and wrongs in politics. Right and wrong depend on your personal morals. By my personal morals there are objective rights and wrongs, but every moral I have there is somebody will disagree. For things like planed killing of otherwise healthy adults there is a large enough agreement that it is a wrong and we send those who disagree to prison. Note even there how many qualifies I had to put in - every one is required to get around a large fraction that will disagree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by AnimalMuppet on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:46PM (#21599406)

Stronger: Even if we were in agreement about right and wrong, that doesn't mean that we agree about what to do. We agree that homelessness is bad? Great. How should we fix it? There we may still differ, even if we agree that homelessness is a problem that we should try to fix. How sure am I that my preferred policy is more likely to work than your preferred policy? I would say that at best I am only about 70% sure.

The problem comes when I act as if I am certain that my policy proposals are better than yours - and, worse, that you are therefore evil for proposing such flawed policies as you do. We assign to policies a certainty that they don't deserve.

"In reality no political program can be more than probably correct." - C. S. Lewis.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by harimau777 on Thursday November 21, 2019 @02:58PM (#21598812)

I think you are confusing whether people agree on right and wrong with whether their is an objective right and wrong. It's entirely possible that there is an objective right and wrong but that some people are mistaken as to what it is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by bluGill on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:03PM (#21598879)

Philosopher's have not been able to agree on anything. Religion and culture can agree on many right and wrongs, but there is nothing universal across other religions or cultures.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by harimau777 on Thursday November 21, 2019 @07:54PM (#21601450)

That doesn't mean that there is nothing universal, just that religions and cultures don't always agree on what it is.

Even then, there is generally agreement that murder is wrong, and that murder means killing innocent people. The disagreement is generally over what constitutes "innocent" and "people". Similarly, pretty much everyone agrees that stealing is wrong, the differences are just in the details of what constitutes property and associated rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by watwut on Thursday November 21, 2019 @02:38PM (#21598531)

We do not send those who disagree about killing adults to prison. We send there those who we think actually killed people. That is massive difference practically.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by bluGill on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:02PM (#21598860)

Technically you are correct, but I don't think it makes much difference: the vast majority of people agree there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by sneak on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:02PM (#21598869)

Some we send to Afghanistan and Iraq, with pay and holidays and parades.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by bluGill on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:05PM (#21598890)

Opps, you are correct I forgot about war. There are probably a couple other exceptions to the "general rule" as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by mcguire on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:21PM (#21599088)

Back in college, I took a Contemporary Moral Problems class (from a professor who resembled Captain Kangaroo---it was surreal and probably an example of something). The one quote I remember from the reading was,

"I believe I have a moral responsibility not to wantonly slaughter my neighbors."

It's a short sentence, but the amount of waffling in it is amazing.

[ Parent | on HN ]