• hughperman@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Incorrect, there is no debate

    Ethical relativity states that the goodness of dogs is absolute regardless of the frame of reference

    • h6a@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      There IS such thing as aether in the Theory of Moral Relativity: dogs.

    • QueenCute@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      hm well I agree with you, but some people have a weird frame of reference that makes them imagine the concept of a “bad dog”

  • HowShouldIKnow@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    "But with dogs, we do have “bad dog.” Bad dog exists. “Bad dog! Bad dog! Stole a biscuit, bad dog!” The dog is saying, “Who are you to judge me? You human beings who’ve had genocide, war against people of different creeds, colors, religions, and I stole a biscuit?! Is that a crime? People of the world!” “Well, if you put it that way, I think you’ve got a point. Have another biscuit, sorry.” Eddie Izzard, Glorious

    • SubArcticTundra
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But what the dog is doing is it is generalising. That is a beginner’s logical fallacy. It is suggesting that just because somebody else in a group that it perceives you to be in did something unjust, you carry responsibility for that injustice as well. Which does not hold. It is like blaming a German for the Holocaust. So the dog’s argument is cunning, but inherently flawed.

  • theoldgreymare@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This goes double for human good girls.

    And somehow there’s always so many more ways to be called “bad” than “good.”