Good girl ethics

306 points · 9 comments · view on lemmy.world

9 Comments

hughperman@mander.xyz · 17 pts · 3y (2 replies)

Incorrect, there is no debate

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

hernanca@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3y

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

QueenCute@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3y

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 · 6 pts · 3y (3 replies)

"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

QueenCute@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3y

exactly!

SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 3y
[ removed ]
SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 3y

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 · 3 pts · 3y (1 reply)

This goes double for human good girls.

And somehow there's always so many more ways to be called "bad" than "good."

QueenCute@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3y

for real! let's invent way to call good girls "good" 😤