Sophisticated faggots of /b/ i present you a question: Is there

I ain't no sophisticated mofo, but I can tell you, nigga, all that shit bout right n wrong is pure horsecrap. Ideas constructing morals vary from mofo to mofo, so the process of categorizing and distinguishing right and wrong can varvary to the point of beeing contradictory.
Even if we were to make an spectrum of right and wrongness for our own moral, it would be inapplicable, for right implies wrong and viceversa. Therefore, if you were "to do right" you'd also be doing wrong.

>>675794773
Thanks Tyrone the nuanced street nigga

>>675794773
so you are sayin that right and wrong is a subjective matter?

only for the autisto-sociopath

Morality and ethics are all subjective opinion.
You cannot "prove" something to be more wrong than another thing

the source of all disagreements are two in kind:
1) Different Goal (opinion)
2) How to achieve Goal (more objective)

>>675794091
No.
Because there is no wrong way to eat a Reeses.

>>675795318
So, pretty much all the edgelords on this site?

>>675795666
This is actually a good arguement. Checked.

>>675795596
but if you break everything down to the point that its all numbers, shouldnt be there a proof of right and wrong?

>>675796228
no because the definition of right and wrong vary per individual
numbers are just a way to categorize or describe observations. they don't change anything.

>>675796474
so tell me why what you just said isnt completely wrong?

>>675796646
First tell him what you think is wrong.

File: 200_s.gif (39KB, 356x200px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 356x200px

>>675796474
>>675796646

File: 1457164109476.jpg (69KB, 675x663px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 675x663px

>>675794091
zen bhoedism teaches us that everything is a duality, for there would be no right if there were no wrong. Namaste

>>675796798
wrong is something thats not right dude

>>675796871
but thats wrong m8

>>675796646
i'm not saying whether it is right or wrong, it is my opinion.
knowledge can only be assessed as right or wrong if you accept some sort of assumption (called an axiom)

For example, the entirety of science is based on the axiom that places trust in observation.

File: 1403212970668.jpg (40KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 300x300px

>>675796950
exactly my point. Namaste

>>675797168
but scientifically proven things 200 years ago were proved to be wrong. maybe the same thing will happen in 200 and so on... do you anons think that in 200 million years people will know the correct truth or is it an endless pit of exploration of false proofs and truths?

>>675797543
What is truth to you?
If "truth" means "in accordance to reality" and if you assume what we observe IS reality (as is general in science), then we will constantly be updating our understanding of reality with new observations and ideas about such observations. It is impossible to know if there is a limit to such a system, and knowing if such a limit exists would also most likely be useless.