morals serious talk

[u/silly___bird]

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

[u/According-Ebb2443]

Well, yes and no, I used chatgpt to polish the response because I'm lazy to edit it myself, but everything here is paraphrasing on my prompt, here's my original unedited response/prompt:
" There seems to be a confusion between ethics and metaethics. When people discuss "good" , "bad", and how people should behave, they are discussing normative ethics in which there're many frameworks with different metaethical views. In western philosophy, there're two main categories in a spectrum on one side: Consequentialism (like utilitarianism) and deontology (like Kantianism, divine command theory, contractualism...etc), there's also virtue ethics which doesn't concern about consequence or moral principles which cares more about cultivating positive traits and wisdom through action in order to achieve happiness and welfare (eudaimonia). The one I mentioned are frameworks philosophers developed to categorize or distinguish between moral behaviors. Metaethics on the other hand cares about the origin/existence (ontological state) of morality. There're 3 main categories moral realism which thinks moral principle are objective and are no more less facts than say scientific facts, moral relativism which believe morality as social construct and changing over time: say for example slavery is wrong is only true because of our current understanding or culture, it was permissible in the past and taken for granted, so what defines what's moral is social forces, and lastly there's nihilism which doesn't belief in any morality and sees morality just as type of human behavior no more no less.
Chatgpt can you polish it or phrase it better"

[u/silly___bird → u/According-Ebb2443]

Something of mine says this is humanized, anyway this isn't an excuse for me to not answer, I'll go through it then I'll give your deserved reply.

[u/According-Ebb2443 → u/silly___bird]

well, you said you appreciate any shared thoughts. I delivered mine, not on purpose of convincing you at anything but to clarify the difference between ethics and metaethics. All I received in return is rude replies to portray your "intellectual" and "moral" superiority.

[u/silly___bird → u/According-Ebb2443]

How exactly? I respected your shared thought and I was humble at the end, maybe it sounded rude but it was most out of frustration cuz I mostly know how and when chat gpt is used and it's kind of disrespectful to just reply to someones argument by just using ai,again, not saying you did that or the infos chat gpt gives are invalid