Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XiphosAletheria t1_j4wk1ns wrote

Reply to comment by OMKensey in Hume's Guillotine and The Role of Free Speech in Social Media by causeapp

>The post seems to presume that morality is subjective.

Because it is, like all matters of personal preference.

>If morality is objective, a reviewer could censor false normative statements as well.

But they aren't, which is why the problem arises.

>While epistemically knowing whether certain moral statements are true or false may be difficult, it is not always difficult. I don't see why censoring, for example, "cannibalism is good" should be a tough call.

Because that is your particular opinion, but it is not objectively true. It's a value judgement, and like all value judgments it really depends on your goals and personal desires. You can argue that cannibalism is bad because it risks spreading prion diseases, for instance, but that will only be convincing to people below a certain threshold of risk tolerance.

1

OMKensey t1_j4wl0rq wrote

Professional philosophers devote long books to this debate. I'm amazed you figured solved the issue with such absolute certainty.

But, maybe it's just your opinion.

1

XiphosAletheria t1_j4wmf93 wrote

>Professional philosophers devote long books to this debate.

Which may be why philosophy lacks the cachet of the hard sciences. The willingness to debate something clearly foolish is itself foolish, as is using an appeal to authority in a debate, especially when you engage in the fallacy so vaguely.

1