• SavvyWolf@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Indeed, it’s something I think about quite a bit. The conclusion I’ve come to involves consent: If all people involved in something fully understand and consent to what is happening, then they should not be “judged” for it.

    And yes, I know there are holes and loopholes in that conclusion, but I think it’s nearly impossible to have a logically sound and consistent moral framework.

    • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      nearly impossible to have a logically sound and consistent moral framework.

      Moral belief, I agree with. Framework sounds much more maleable. I think it’s doable but you need tolerances. Since a framework would shape your belief and everyone have to fill in the blanks for themselves. Two different people could have wildly different conclusions working with the same moral outline. We have to allow for failings but also recognize the failings and adapt. If there is some give and allowances for people to be wrong it makes it less strenuous and easier to uphold your own personal morality.

      Like or not Christianity deals with this. It’s a confusing system, purposefully so church leaders can police it, but jesus offers forgiveness. They are so confident in it that Jesus can offer forgiveness for things that no normal person would be able to. I’m not saying the Christian implementation is the right one but I think it allowed the religion to flourish.