Hacker News Reader

Comment by Asraelite | Hacker News Reader

I suspect you're not as much for gay rights as some people if you're going to moral relativism state sponsored murder of minority groups.

I would do the exact same for mass genocide or any other atrocity. Logic shouldn't disappear just because the act is above a certain threshold for evil.

This is moral chauvinism

Morality and legality are two different things. If your morality is at odds with Human Rights, maybe your country with DiFfErEnT mOraLiTy shouldn't be part of the UN. Last time I checked, Qatar was part of the UN.

Hmm, I think if UN was based on morality that was in line of Human Rights it would be rather empty and powerless. For example the Security Council would not have any members.

Unfortunately you are right.

Why is arrogant? Because I'm claiming a moral value is objective?

I believe certain moral issues are objective. I'm not a philosopher or anything similar so I can't go into depth but moral relativism and subjective morality are debated subjects. Here's a great article on objective morality.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201...

While I appreciate the sentiment, the article performs a sleight of hand by connecting the unassailable "harm is bad by definition" to "those are harmful things". Relativists argue that what is harmful is not a mathematical truth, but rather a result of a given system of values.

In the end, the article just shows one point of reference, but fails to establish that it's objective.

There must be a standard to morality too as every other thing

If normativity isn't real, it's also not problematic for him to claim that harming gay people is objectively immoral, because there is similarly no obligation to apportion one's beliefs to the evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com