An Argument I Had About Morality on Reddit

I'm in a subreddit called r/spirituality, which, as you can probably imagine, is a mixed bag of wisdom, bullshit, and schizophrenic people being encouraged in their delusions instead of advised to get help. The nice thing is that unlike in a high-demand religion, nobody can require me to believe anything I don't want to. About a month ago, someone made this simple post:

Title: "The idea that a person who treated others horribly (or was a horrible person in general) gets a clean slate once they leave the earth feels like a slap in the face to the people who had to deal with them in life"

Body: "​Like that person gets to be okay wherever they are with no punishment but I still have to deal with the scars from their treatment for the rest of my life? They get to be at peace but I don’t? That’s messed up"

That was it. I don't know what specifically they had in mind as the source of this idea, but I've heard it mostly from near-death experience accounts, and I agreed with this person's sentiment a thousand percent. So I said, "Agreed. And the claim from some NDEs that good and evil aren't real disgusts me to my core. I don't think anyone deserves to suffer forever for causing a finite amount of harm, but they should face consequences before they go on to eternal bliss." Notice that I didn't say this claim isn't true, because I don't know that, but it disgusts me to my core regardless.

So then someone was like, "​I feel like I have missed some thing that everyone else has read up on or seen!?!

"People do face consequences in the after life, it's mostly just karma though. I dont know what this stuff about people just 'going on to bliss' is but that sounds pretty sensational. As far as I know it's a fair bit more complicated than that, if you want to know more read the Tibetan book of living and dying, that gives a decent outline of the process of dying even if it isn't exactly right(or maybe I just don't remember dying that well... both times)

'Good and Evil' isn't real, at least not really. It's literally entirely subjective. I happen to be one of those NDE people lmfao."

By "going on to bliss," I was referring to the majority of NDE accounts, where people just feel infinite love from the universe or higher power and don't feel judged by it for anything they've ever done, which is a really beautiful concept for normal people who are doing their best, but not so much for assholes who devote their lives to making the world a worse place. They also often talk about how we plan out our entire lives before we come here, and we're just like actors playing roles, and everything that happens here ceased to matter as soon as we die. Some people report "hellish" NDEs, but there seems to be no correlation between having those and doing anything to deserve them. Anyway, I felt like if this person responding to me really had an NDE, they should have told me exactly how it was explained to them. Merely repeating the claim that disgusted me to my core and signing off with "lmfao" wasn't very persuasive. It seemed downright douchey to me at the time, though it's not as bad in context now that I'm looking at it with fresh eyes.

So I said, "​So I could literally say Hitler did nothing wrong, and my subjective opinion would be entirely valid? Surely you can understand why I have a huge problem with that." Notice that even now, I didn't insist that this premise, abhorrent though it is, wasn't true. I should have picked a more creative example, though. We're all sick of everyone comparing everything to Hitler. I should have picked a different genocidal dictator, like Pol Pot, Théoneste Bagosora, or Benjamin Netanyahu.

The person didn't respond for several days, so when they did, and up until just now when I revisited this conversation, I thought they were a second person getting on my ass. They said, "​Morality is entirely subjective. So basically, humans aren't as important as we think. We aren't the centre of the universe or anything even close. The universe is full of life.

"What is nice to me is not necessarily nice to a cat, a cow, a slime mold, another person. Every living thing is unique and has its own needs, desires, preferences etc.

"So with all that in mind, morality is completely and utterly subjective. There is no moral code passed down from God, LOVE is the main unifying force of reality, BUT what is love to one thing is not necessarily recieved as love by another thing. For example, let's say the sun loves the world, but in the process it burns your face off. Do you see what I'm getting at?

"I know people are terrified by this concept and a lot of people struggle with it, but it doesn't actually change anything, not really. Because if humans have a general consensus on morality then we can apply it generally, and we do."

Myself, I don't think "Humans aren't the center of the universe" (which I agree with) automatically translates to "Genocide isn't evil because it doesn't bother slime molds." And I'm pretty sure the preference to avoid pain and death is almost universal among organisms with the capacity to have preferences. And although I'm open to the possibility that the sun possesses some degree of consciousness beyond our understanding, it was a very strange example to use because I'm pretty sure it heats the world through automated nuclear fusion, not any kind of agency. Maybe one could argue that the laws of physics are some kind of agency beyond our understanding, but my point remains that it can't choose to not heat the world until its fuel runs out in a few billion years, long after we're extinct anyway. I didn't want to be a jerk and nit-pick everything this person said, though, so I focused on the last part, which I found most disturbing, and I concluded with a point of agreement in the hope of not seeming too contentious. I said:

"​I mean, that general consensus has endorsed some horrific things over the years and can do so again any time it pleases. I don't want to live in a world where minorities are at the majority's mercy.

"I noticed that you sidestepped my question because you intuitively understand how messed up it would be to say that Hitler did nothing wrong, even though it logically follows from what you're saying, unless I'm still missing something.

"But I do like the idea that love is the unifying force of reality. I try to let it guide my actions. When I'm unkind to people, it's usually because they've pissed me off by being unkind to others. I know love is far more important than all the rules I was taught I had to obey to please God."

They said, "From Hitler's perspective or a die-hard nazi, they did nothing wrong. Sorry I forgot about that part"

As if "that part" wasn't my entire comment. But whatever. For a moment, I was impressed that this person had the courage and integrity to stand by the uncomfortable implications of their belief. And then I realized they hadn't actually said anything significant. No shit, of course evil people don't think they're doing anything wrong. That's not the important part. So, not wanting to play any more games, I followed up,​"And their perspective is as valid as anyone else's, yes or no?"

That was 18 days ago. That person hasn't gotten back to me yet. Look, I wasn't trying to be a jerk, and I have no malice toward this person. I just want people to be consistent with their worldviews. If the implications of your own beliefs are too uncomfortable for you to admit, then either your beliefs need to change or you do. And yes, maybe this person did get their belief straight from the divine during an NDE or two, in which case they can't just toss it aside, but I must admit I'm skeptical of that because in that case, I don't think I should have been able to outsmart them so easily. Oh well.

Now, in fairness, here's another response someone gave me that I liked much better, particularly because I believe many (not all) NDEs are valid and want them to make sense: "​Perhaps they mean something like 'there isn't a sort of 'moral laws' that the Universe enforces like a cosmic Judge', but rather more that the consequences of actions to others are mirrored back not because of how they were judged but just as they actually landed, and that it is up to us to decide how that should affect our doings. That said, this is a dangerous form of language to describe the matter with because it ambiguates between the idea of no set moral rules or values and the idea of irrelevancy of moral cognition - and the latter is, indeed, a serious problem."

I understand that distinction in a vague, abstract way. I'd probably need to be high to understand it on a deeper level. I'm good with it for now.