= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Subjective vs. normative offensiveness - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
Relative. If you accept objective morality then the point becomes moot -- there is no "normative" or "subjective", there is just right and wrong.
How about them goats?
Well, as we're currently assuming a relativist framework, I'd say not offensive within certain cultural contexts.
"Normative" doesn't mean "globally normative" here. It can also mean "culturally normative". Cultures don't just take positions on object-level positions, they also take meta-level positions that can be used to justify these object-level positions.
So, did we already reach the point where it's all relative and culture-dependent, and subculture-relevant, etc. and the difference between normative offense and subjective offense disappears into indistinguishability? :-)
I was using subjectively offensive to mean personally offensive; that is subjectively offensive relative to a person. Normatively offensive here means offensive relative to a group. So they are distinct. Does this clear it up? I'm getting quite confused here: are you a cultural relativist or do you believe that morality is individual?
I don't fit into pigeonholes well :-)