this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
883 points (99.0% liked)

People Twitter

6483 readers
472 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
883
An ethics professor at Cambridge talks about teaching ethics in 2025 (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 days ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
221 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
(page 5) 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ethalis@jlai.lu 10 points 4 days ago (7 children)

I don't know, I might intellectually understand that morals are relative to a culture and that even our concept of universal human rights is an heritage of our colonial past and, on some level, trying to push our own values as the only morality that can exist. On a gut level though, I am entirely unable to consider that LGBT rights, gender equality or non-discrimination aren't inherently moral.

I don't think holding these two beliefs is weird, it's a natural contradiction worth debating and that's what I would expect from an ethics teacher

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 50 points 4 days ago (7 children)

I've been a College and University prof for the past 6 years. I'm in my young 40s, and I just don't understand most of the people in their 20s. I get that we grew up in really different times, but I wouldn't have thought there would be such a big clash between them and me. I teach about sound and music, and I simply cannot catch the interest of most of them, no matter what I try. To the point were I'm no sure I want to keep doing this. Maybe I'm already too old school for them but I wonder who will want to teach anymore....

[–] formulaBonk@lemm.ee 55 points 4 days ago (14 children)

That is the same sentiment my music teacher had 15 years ago and the same sentiment his music teacher did before that. I don’t think it’s illustrating the times as much as just that teaching is a tough and thankless job and most people aren’t interested in learning

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Noam Chomsky would like a word.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works 90 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Yeah, that's because moral relativism is cool when you live in a free and decent society.

The irony is that you can afford to debate morality when society is moral and you're not facing an onslaught of inhumanity in the form of fascism and unchecked greed that's threatening any hope for a future.

But when shit hits the fan, morality becomes pretty fucking clear. And that's what's happening right now. Philosophical debates about morality are out the window when you're facing an existential threat.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 108 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

Even if all morality is subjective or inter-subjective I have some very strong opinions about tabs vs spaces

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 5 points 4 days ago

Tabs. F alignment for aesthetic purposes

[–] MasterReflection1916@lemm.ee 12 points 4 days ago (3 children)

People who use tabs are monsters

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Vertical or horizontal tabs? And I don't mean browser tabs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 44 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Morality is, and always has been, built entirely upon empathy. Understanding how someone else feels and considering the greater implications beyond yourself is the fundamental building block to living a moral life. If you're willing to condemn the world to your shitty code just because the tab key is quicker, you're a selfish monster who deserves hyponichial splinters. See also: double spaces after a period.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Morality is, and always has been, built entirely upon empathy. Understanding how someone else feels and considering the greater implications beyond yourself is the fundamental building block to living a moral life.

Stoning people to death for mixing fabrics was based on morality too.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Can both points not be true? There will be local morals and social morals that differ from place to place with overarching morals that tend to be everywhere.

Not all morals or beliefs have to be unshakable or viewed as morally reprehensible for disagreement.

Unless they mean all their ethics are held that way in which case that's just the whole asshole in a different deck chair joke.

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If you agree that morals are relative and culturally constructed, then you shouldn't reject differences in morals of others as immoral.

That's basically just taking a position where you want to be able to change your mind on what's "moral", and expect everyone else to follow your opinion on it.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I don't think acknowledging morals as relative to the culture they exist within exempts decrees of immorality. Relative to their culture, it is. Should they speak from the point of view of a culture that they don't understand? I personally think it's a sliding scale where, to the extent it harms other people, it needs to be viewed more objectively just, and where it doesn't harm, it's fine being a difference in opinion. The only downside to this is that sometimes you don't know enough about a topic to know there are victims, and so your prescriptive thoughts can change very quickly about the morality of it. Perspective is important and should always be maximized to avoid this problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

Not all morals or beliefs have to be unshakable or viewed as morally reprehensible for disagreement.

The tweet suggests the sample group disagrees with this statement.

I think you're expressing the general consensus: people get a lot of their morals from their environment, but there's some stuff that's universal/non-negotiable; and we should be able to find common ground with that.

At least, I think that's the general consensus. I've gotten into trouble with that assumption though.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm sure both are true for some people, but I think the irony he's pointing out is that this belief system recognizes that every individual/culture has different morals, while simultaneously treating individual/cultural differences as reprehensible.

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like someone who was raised in an echo chamber. They recognize other chambers exist, but hate that they do. We're back to tribalism.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Or someone with strong morals? I think LGBT people deserve to live. I understand that other people do not based on their own moral arguments. I would not want to associate with them. I don't live in an echo chamber. I recognize and interact with people with different beliefs (even on LGBT issues), but there are certain moral beliefs that make me not desire to interact with people. Is that tribalism or my morality? If I don't wanna hang out with nazis, I guess that's tribalism and the outgroup is nazis? Should I stop living in an echo chamber and hang out with more nazis?

The concept of an echo chamber when used in this casual way is so reductive. "People hang out with other who and consume media that aligns with their beliefs". That's not inherently a bad thing. It becomes bad when they are unable to recognize other beliefs exist and unable to accept at least some of them as valid alternative perspectives.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The context is important - “morals” covers both “I think drinking is/isn’t an inherently morally irresponsible activity” and “I want to gas minorities”, and one of those has slightly higher stakes. You can understand the latter often happens because small town america might not have ever met minority groups, or somehow figures the small immigrant community with delicious food is “one of the few good ones” - that doesn’t make their “morals” any less reprehensible.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2 points 4 days ago

I think we agree/are saying the same thing? I'm saying that talking in absolutes about echo chambers being bad is reductive. To me, the important distinction between an actual echo chamber and being a normal person with beliefs and opinions, is the ability to recognize that sometimes others have different beliefs/opinions and that those may be equally valid. Like I said I'm anti nazi, but also that normal people (which I'm sometimes classified as) are able to accept some differences. So I'm not ok with nazis, but I think it's ok to fast for lent if you want even if I don't. So, we're both saying context is important?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments