• 3 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle











  • Don’t be so quick to dismiss the feedback from compliance teams. It’s possible TOU are written such that you really can’t store data on the client without agreement. It’s also possible that other regulations besides GDPR apply that you may not be aware of, for example those specific to banking or health.





  • I think the appropriateness of this criticism is highly dependent on subject. You can fit Maxwell’s equations on a sticky note, but most electrical engineering work will be learning how to apply those laws in a practical way. On the other hand, if you’re in an English Literature course and didn’t read the literature your class will be discussing, that’s on you.



  • MooseBoys@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlMorality
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    A moral absolutist would argue that most, or even all, are wrong in one way or another. One can be a moral absolutist without claiming to be able to evaluate the morality of any particular scenario.

    To provide an analogous example, there is a two-player game called Hex for which it has been proven that there exists a dominant strategy for the first player, but a generalized winning strategy is unsolved. One can soundly assert that such a strategy exists without knowing what it is. Likewise, its not fundamentally invalid to assert that there exist absolute moral truths without knowing what they are.



  • MooseBoys@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlMorality
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example

    This does not follow from moral relativism. Moral relativism simply states the morality of serial killers is determined by people rather than an absolute truth.

    For example, if you add the detail of “serial killer of humans”, most societies would deem that morally wrong. In contrast, “serial killer of wasps” would be considered perfectly fine by many. A moral relativist would say the difference between these two is determined by society.

    You can, of course, claim that murdering humans is not morally wrong. A moral absolutist might say “you’re wrong because X”, while a moral relativist might say “I don’t agree because X”.