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

  • spacesweedkid27 @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is no conclusion. You can call it objective. All moral is based on subjectiveness: Different people have different morals. Especially ideology can have different morals. For example Nazism has a morality that the (in the eyes of the ruling party) “weak” kin should be exterminated and the “strong” kin should spread more and survive.

    This is a moral standpoint, and because objects like “good” and “bad” are based on moral, the political correctness of the moral is subjective.

    In ideology there is no right and wrong if you have no premises and no moral yourself, so to speak, if you’re really objective.

    Calling something objective is in truth just reactionistic.

    But of course I think that in any debate there should be moral premises, like for example a democratic parlament should always have the premise: “for the people”.

    In reality it’s quite different sadly.

    Of course different people again have different understandings on what makes everyone in a democratic society happy, but for example right wing parties that praise capitalism or fascism there are definitely people that would gain from that.

    Capitalism has the consequence that the rich get richer, and so to not devalue the currency, the poorer have to get poorer, even if they don’t get less money, but the amount of money that exists devalues the money of the poor. Inflation. And if political power can be bought through lobbying or corruption, there does not exist a democracy.

    Fascism has the consequence that one group of people become absolute and govern the rest which is definitely not democratic.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And if political power can be bought through lobbying or corruption, there does not exist a democracy.

      I have to disagree there, in that I think it’s a bit more subtle.

      There will always be people who seek power for self-enrichment and at the same time those people who see having power over others as a great responsability (who would probably be the best in terms of fair and honest yielding of that power), often avoid it exactly because they feel the “weight on their shoulders” would the too much to bare.

      So you’ll always have at least some people holding power who use it for personal upside maximization, including via corruption.

      Your really can’t have a perfect Democracy totally free of crooks in power, as even if you magically made it so, lots of people seek power for personal upside maximization and sooner of later some would get through.

      Instead, what Democracy has is whole concept of the 3 independent Pillars Of Democracy, the Political, the Judicial and the Press, which watch each other and have some for of power over each other (the Press indirectly via influencing voters), and that’s what’s meant to create a sort of “dynamic” balance as crooks seek power but at the same time crooks in power are getting caught and thrown out (even punished).

      Now, if you look at some of the most flawed of Democracies (personally I don’t think they’re trully democratic because their voting systems are mathematically heavilly rigged to create a power duopoly) - the US and the UK - you will notice that the Press was subverted first (and this has been going on long enough and deep enough that some people genuinelly believe partisanship - i.e. taking sides in Politics, so submission to a Political Party - in the Press is a good thing) and then the Political system became more and more corrupt, with in the US the additional problem that even the Judiciary pillar has been subverted at several levels by the Political pillar (not that in the US there was ever much independence of between them to begin with as lots of top positions in the Judiciary are of political nomination).

      Anyways, all this to say that we’ll always have pressures making political power “buyable”, hence why its so important to understand the function of and protect the other Pillars of Democracy and their independence as they’re part of the mechanics which pushes the other way, and whilst the system cannot achieve and remain perfect in a static way, it can achieve a dynamic balance that as the crooks get found out, kicked out and their deeds undone.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This seems to assume reality is only that what can be measured by humans currently. But decisions have consequences even if we can not foresee them. To assume that there is no objective morality assumes that consequences were random or exist independent from causes.

    • WldFyre@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism has the consequence that the rich get richer, and so to not devalue the currency, the poorer have to get poorer

      I don’t think that’s true in an economy where the population is constantly growing. It’s like saying in a utopia where everyone has the same wealth, having kids would make everyone poorer.