What is morality? Is it wrong to kill someone to save life? Is

Killing the innocents in the name of Satan

>>1669021

Morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

>is it wrong to kill someone to save someone's life

No.

>is it right to steal from tyrants

No.

When good has been abstracted, then evil has been implied.

So long and short are abstracted from distance.
Hot and cold are abstracted from temperature.
Before and after abstracted from sequence.
The enlightened person experiences without abstraction.

>>1669038
What is good and what is evil, that's what I'm saying it's not black and white like other examples

>>1669036
So if someone steals from you it would be wrong to steal from them

>>1669069
Yes. You are no better than him. If you muSt you can challenge him to a duel.

>>1669047
They are abstracted from action.

>>1669085
Right, so if I kill someone that action is inherently evil if it isn't I don't know what is, but if you do it to save, say 100 people is it still evil

>>1669084
No your no better, at stealing let's say but By not stealing does it make you better? Let's say he stole all your resources to survive, it would be wrong to steal back to live?

There is no objective morality, but in my opinion, one should not kill one for a few. It may be justified if you save millions, though. Unless they has other value to them. For example, they could be the last speaker of an important, undocumented language. In that case, if could be okay to let 10s of millions die to let them survive long enough to document their language.

It's okay to "steal" from tyrants. They got their wealth by stealing from you in the first place. Okay, unless you are also rich. If you are poor and they are rich, it's okay.

If one was to steal from a thief, as long as they take only whatever has been stolen specifically from them and not looted other's goods, it is fine.

>>1669466
So you are saying words are more important then 10,000,000's of lives?

>>1669492
Perhaps. Depends on your moral framework.

From a modern point of view, one could argue that the holocaust was a good thing due to the art it inspired and the role it plays in culture as a reference point for horrible acts. At least, it will be in ten years, when no one who suffered form it are alive anymore. I'm sure everyone here has had more enjoyment from enjoying the art it inspired than they have suffered from it.
Think about black death. No one cares about the people, it was just an historical event. The real thing people are sad about is the cultural losses.
No one are sad about the people who died in the genocide of the Native Americans. What people are sad about is the loss of culture.

Only contemporary people care more about the humans than they care about the art and culture. Every person in the future, and many in present too, will care more about the culture lost than they will care about the people who died.

No one cries over the lives lost in black death. Millions cry over the library in Alexandria. The latter was the bigger tragedy.

Of course, not every life is equal either. The life of a stone age person in PNG is worth far more than the life of an American or a Chinese. Because there are so many identical lives, while PNG lives take place in unique cultures with unique experiences. I'd be far more likely to sacrifice 10 million Chinese than 10 million PNGians.