shibaozi on Nostr: i probably should've said ontological 2 because that's when the philosophical ...

i probably should've said ontological 2 because that's when the philosophical argument applies and completely disregarding the cultural idea of 2, which is a practical concern. did you really think i was making an argument that the concept of 2 was a universal social constant?

ethical relativism says that ethics literally works differently for different people and cultures, so that what is ethical for you isn't ethical to me and vice versa. imo the universe already has many truths, so i don't think the concept of the universe applying morality in the same way for all people is farfetched from for instance applying physics in the same way for all people (hurr durr relativity but if you were going to same velocity in the same place then you will experience the same time dilation, etc).

i don't think the universe is "agreeing with me" when i go from a high energy system to a lower energy system, or vice versa, ethics is much deeper than whether is something right or wrong, if it was then you'd be right that such a field would only be useful for ego massaging. it's the difference between a technical study of something and a safety check, ethics is not just handbook of speed limits, but a whole dimension of study where we can use arguments to build large thought structures to form a civilization called moral philosophy