Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
How is "being bad" decided?
If it's decided internally ("bad" is what you believe is bad), then all the objectivists get a free pass for being assholes. Hitler is a supermodel, etc.
If it's decided externally (there's an universal definition of "bad"), how far into the future does it propagate? If I rescue from drowning someone who will genocide all the Dutch in the future, when do I go bald?
That said, beauty pageants would be much funnier, with trolley problems instead of talent competitions.
This is why this one wouldn't work in any meaningful way. Good and bad is a human creation subject to the individuals perception.
I think they are saying that in their revised universe there would be an absolute humanity spanning moral code.
And the things that that moral code decide are bad are bad always for everyone regardless.
I think what we have is something much better. A flexible morality which is taught from generation to generation and adapted as needed. An absolut moral code wouldn't work.
Funny enough, that's exactly the way it actually is. And I believe this system still works; not that we could change it anyway.
Still, this is how it is. It discourages immoral actions even when nobody sees them happening, because the person doing them still knows and feels bad/shame/worries.