r/ExAlgeria • u/silly___bird • Aug 27 '25
Discussion morals serious talk
I see a lot of debates here about “good” and “bad” behaviors/acts, or about human rights in general. But whenever I try to think about it objectively, I always reach the same conclusion that there is no such a thing as defined "bad" or "good".
From a pure objective point of view, a human is free to do whatever they are capable of doing, as long as it doesn’t conflict with their own interests. But everytime I ask someone to explain why exactly things like killing, rape...down to lying (which i consider bad according to my moral code) are objectively bad, most of people here usually laugh, dismiss the question, or treat it as self-evident like it’s an axiom we aren't supposed to question.
But history and psychology show us that what we label as “bad” has not always been seen that way:
in roman gladiator games killing was entertainment for the masses.
Vikings and Mongols raiding and violence were celebrated as honorable.
Hitler and the Nazis genocide was framed as a “necessary good” for their vision of society, and millions followed.
people like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer admitted they enjoyed acts society calls horrific.
epstein's island.
some individuals even enjoy violent fantasies or claim to have found pleasure in situations we would normally call “assault.”
appreciate any shared thoughts
1
u/According-Ebb2443 Aug 28 '25
It seems like there's some confusion between ethics and metaethics.
When people talk about what is "good" or "bad" and how we should behave, they're usually engaging with normative ethics. This area of philosophy deals with systems or frameworks that try to define moral behavior. In Western philosophy, several major approaches fall under this category:
Consequentialism, like utilitarianism, judges actions by their outcomes, that is, whether they produce more happiness or reduce suffering.
Deontology, such as Kantianism or divine command theory, focuses on duties, rules, or principles, regardless of the consequences.
Virtue ethics, which comes from Aristotle, emphasizes the development of good character traits and wisdom. It’s less about rules or results and more about becoming a good person and living a fulfilled life (eudaimonia).
These are just some of the ways philosophers have tried to define moral behavior.
On the other hand, metaethics cares about the origin/existence (ontological state) of morality. It asks questions like: Do moral values really exist? Are they objective truths, or just human inventions?
There are three broad views here:
Moral realism holds that moral facts exist objectively, just like scientific facts. For example, "murder is wrong" would be true regardless of human opinion.
Moral relativism sees morality as a social construct. What we call "good" or "bad" changes over time and between cultures. For instance, slavery was once widely accepted but is now condemned.
Moral nihilism denies the existence of any moral truths at all. From this view, morality is simply a human behavior or set of preferences, nothing more.
So when someone asks, "Why is this objectively wrong?" they are raising a metaethical question. And depending on your metaethical position, the answer might be very different. You seem to lean to Moral nihilism or maybe you were speaking hypothetically as in like state of nature, then maybe you're more of contractionist, but these are just my assumption.