Lunatic Vegan OFFENDED by Harmless Children's Song

>>110708
>rt.com
Good job, Comrade,

>>110709
Still a news article, farn.

>>110708
Why doesn't the vegan hate the fox for killing the goose?

>>110746
She does.

How dare it be carnivorous and not a superior vegan that depends on grass andf chemical products.

>>110708
Retards with nothing to offer society but complaints and whining.

>>110746
The fox is not capable of making moral decisions.

Humans are different. Some of us are gifted with a strong sense of morality.

It is a blessing and a curse.

I know this sounds self-righteous, but it's the truth. You either get it or you don't.

>>110792
By the way, I do not hate humans who don't get it.

No more than I hate a retarded person for drooling.

But there are some who do get it, and choose to reject their goodness. These people may be contemptible.

>>110793
I'm gonna order an extra steak tonight and not even eat it. I want you to know that it was killed just for you

STOP BEING OFFENDED BY THINGS
REEEEEEEEEEE

>>110793

Your opinions are invalid and meaningless.

See >>110776

>>110829
As if you would actually do that. You probably won't eat a steak at all.

>>110834
And here we have the a-moral human. Probably a subjectivist. Perhaps ignorance is bliss.

>>110837
You are crazy if you believe every "good" person shares your exact same sense of morality and therefore would do the exact same as you will if presented with the same moral conflict (the trolley problem for example), that's fundamentalism, except your own subjectivity become the standard for god. At least other people have the common decency to say they are just carrying the message.

>>110850
I haven't figured out how to help subjectivists yet. Sorry.

>>110855
If you have nothing more to say then you shouldn't post here, because everyone here is a subjectivist but yourself. Stop wasting everyone's time with that kind of comments.

>>110711
>some retard somewhere thinks some bullshit about something
yeah I guess in some very technical sense that is "news"; it's just sad to see so much naked pandering to /pol/tards whose politics are largely informed by the mentality of crotchety old men that enjoy spending their lives being cranky and badgering folks about trivial shit. I suppose the GOP has finally discovered a youth culture they can relate to.

>>110857
If you want to discuss morality I am happy to do so. Those conversations are so rare, but fruitful.

You'll need to drop the subjectivity, of course.

>>110863
You are not asking me to discuss morality then but your personal gospel. Understand no one is interesad in being preached to but reading different point of views from their own.

>>110866
Here is the problem. You regard any morality as dogma.

Morality is like math. There are fundamental principles that exist whether you comprehend them or not.

There isn't a perfect answer to every moral dilemma.

But there are clear distinctions between good ideas (drinking fresh water) and bad ideas (drinking bleach).

Now you will devise an absurd scenario where drinking bleach is in fact a good idea, completely ignoring the point.

>>110860
>enjoy spending their lives being cranky and badgering folks about trivial shit.
this is word for word SJW

>>110878
well I'd absolutely agree with you; SJW and /pol/ are perfect for each other.

>>110885
The only reason /pol/ feels the need to enact social justice is because SJW are doing the same and making great progress in destroying the world.

>>110871
>Morality is like math. There are fundamental principles that exist whether you comprehend them or not.
Math is axiomatic, axiom is just another word for dogma. Moreover, math is just another way of representing reality, it's only as good as humanity's collective perception thereof can be. You would like to believe that you are speaking math's universal language when dealing with morality and everyone who doesn't understand you is just an idiot, that's not the case.

Newton spent decades trying to mathematically prove the existence of god and finding hidden messages within the bible when not discovering fundamental principles of math and physics. Then came general relativity and quantum mechanics, proving elementary particles behave probabilistically until observed, a qubit can be a 0 and a 1 at the same time, and it will turn out to be either a 0 or a 1 depending on the observation. I suggest you to move on from XVII century math, physics and moral postulates.

>>110896
>it's only as good as humanity's collective perception thereof can be
stop right there. no.

Now, I never said that morality was a perfect a system as math.

I made that evident by stating that there isn't a perfect answer to every moral dilemma.

You suggest that because morality isn't perfectly definable, that it cannot be defined at all. This is not true.

Take this example:

Right now I am home with my dog. She's a good dog. Would it be good for bad for me to stab her?

Of course it would be bad. Morality is quite simple most of the time.

>>110900
>good dog
Assume that good dog means well behaved, a treasured possession.

>>110900
>You suggest that because morality isn't perfectly definable, that it cannot be defined at all.
I suggest being moral is a matter of choices, seeing people don't always make the same choices, either one of them is right and everyone else is wrong on different levels (completely, partially, almost there), or no one is objectively moral assuming there exists an objective morality that objectively dictates your objective mind to do the objectively moral thing at each objectively defined dilemma. If there's no single objective moral solution to the same problem, but say two, three or more morally acceptable ways to deal with it, then there's not a single way to be moral. If there's not a single way to be moral when faced with the exact same problem (and I' don't mean simple problems), then morality is subjective.

>>110914
If there's not a single way to be moral when faced with the exact same problem (and I' don't mean simple problems), then morality is subjective.
That's not what moral subjectivity is.

There are lots of good choices, and lots of bad choices. The subjectivist rejects that and says it is all a matter of opinion.

If you think there are good and bad choices, you are sane. Congratulations.

>>110793
>animal lives matter
Fuck off

>>110934
What are you some kind of nihilist? Grow up. Life is cool.

>>110937
I think I'd be more of a pragmatist

>>110939
Me too. How is it practical to suppose animal life does not matter?

>>110940
Because in its death an animal's life can enrich my own

>>110925
>There are lots of good choices, and lots of bad choices. The subjectivist rejects that and says it is all a matter of opinion.
A good moral choice for you is not necessary a good moral choice for someone else, and even if you are in agreement yours were both good and moral choices a third party might think only one of them is a good moral choice, or that both were amoral or evil. Morality is an idea same as being hungry is an idea, reality is that bacon satisfies your physiological need to eat, same as doing what you judge to be "right thing" satisfies an need emotional need for a peaceful conscience or whatever, reality is also that a jew, a muslim or an hindu will find that eating bacon is amoral, the same way they might judge that the "right thing" that satisfies their emotional needs is doing the opposite of what you did. Perhaps the right thing for them is preventing you to eat that bacon sandwich to save you from committing sin, they are being moral from their perspective, from yours they are being dicks.There's no possibility of reconciling this, either one of you is right and their morality is the standard by which everyone else should abide (much like Muhammad, Jesus or Buddha) or morality is something that depends on your culture and more generally your feelings towards others (or lack thereof), therefore subjective. A subjective morality means that ultimately, good and evil are as perceived by the subject, instead of a shared universal reality (an objective one), not that they don't exist (if only in your mind), therefore the same actions might be both good and evil depending on who you ask.

>>110941
So you disregard morality entirely, concerned only with what benefits you.

That's one way to live, at least you're honest about it.

>>110942
>>110942
>A good moral choice for you is not necessary a good moral choice for someone else

Listen if you're a subjectivist that's fine. Just please stop pretending that this is morality.

It's just relativism. You don't get to be relative and preach about morality, that makes zero sense.

>>110945
I don't disregard morality, I just see it as less valuable than the utility I receive in this case

>>110945
I'm not pretending to be anything, I'm stating a fact, people other than you are doing things that they consider to be moral and that you might not find moral. How do you reconcilie this? Saying they are not moral because morality is not subjective is circular logic.

>>110946
disregard
transitive verb
: to pay no attention to : treat as unworthy of regard or notice

>>110948
relativism
1
a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing
b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them

>>110951
I don't disregard it, I do pay attention to it, and I do notice it, however I conclude that veganism results in a net loss for me, so I decide to not be a vegan

>>110956
>>110956
>I conclude that veganism results in a net loss for me
This is understandable if you don't live in a country like America. Otherwise it is merely a cop out, and you are disregarding morality based on your feelings.

>>110959
While it takes my feelings into account, it's literally just cost benefit

One of the costs or a benefits is how I feel about the animal lives that I extinguish or save with my choice of lifestyle

>>110961
So it's relativism.

>>110951
I thought I was having a conversation with a human being not a dictionary.

Anyway, if there is one ethical truth why is that people don't seem to agree on it much like they can't agree on the one true god? How are people supposed to know that truth? If it is something that is felt, same as you feel hunger, then you must surely understand, that same as a different people hunger for different things, their sense of morality is similarly satisfied by performing different actions when faced with the same situation, some of which might be in direct opposition. Some might do A knowing that it is the "wrong thing", others might do A feeling it to be "right thing", yet another people will do B (the opposite of A) thinking it to be right thing, others will do B despite they feel A to be the right thing. Who is being moral and who is not? Saying morality is not relative isn't a solution.

>>110962
I suppose that's the epithet that is traditionally applied, but this is a very shallow way to think of it, and perhaps only the sort of platonic criticism of one stepped too much in a meaningless quest for purity

I do not think that every opinion on this is of equal merit, I'm not choosing at will through some non-algorithmic thinking

It is moral to eat animals if you can, this is the true moral choice. To live is to consume.

>>110964
>>110965

I don't understand why you are so defensive about being called a moral relativist. That's exactly what you're arguing for.

Do you think there is something wrong with relativity?

Deep down you probably do. Most people are not actual moral relativists, they just deny absolute morality because that makes life easier.

When you engage in hypothetical ethical dilemmas you will quickly find that there are right and wrong answers to every situation.

>>110964
>Anyway, if there is one ethical truth why is that people don't seem to agree on it
As I said above, it's easier to be dishonest.

Eating meat is a perfect example.

Most people know it's wrong to kill an animal for no reason. In America, food is so abundant that anyone can be a vegetarian. There isn't a lot of justification for the amount of animal death that's currently going on.

So rather than admit this, we pretend morality doesn't real.

If there was a way to produce meat magically without animals, we would all agree that it's wrong to kill cows.

Until then, it's collective denial.

>>110948

I don't think it's important to be moral; I'm not really sure how good morals should be defined.

But it's definitely important to be ethical. For example, everyone should strive to be selfless in reducing suffering. We should be able to appreciate the well-being of anything that can suffer, regardless of whether that thing is us. We have a self-preservation instinct, but it's best we suppress that because the potential to reduce overall suffering will be much greater when we can decide on a cold, rational level how best to reduce suffering, rather than allowing our instinct to guide us.

>>110969
I think pragmatism will suffice re: veganism

>>110975
you do realize that you can be pragmatic and a-moral.

>>110979
Or you can acknowledge morality and be pragmatic, no choice is made in a moral vacuum save those of psychopaths

>>110972
Ethics come from the natural affinity for morality humans have.

>>110982
>Or you can acknowledge morality and be pragmatic
Of course you can. That does not make morality any less absolute.

We are all held to the same standards. But living in the real world where we only have so many options.

>>110971
But eating meat is morally correct. You are confusing absolute morality for your own subjective feelings. You are the one denying morality.

>>110984
I think we have come to an understanding of each other's positions

>>110985
>But eating meat is morally correct
If you do not have a reasonable vegetarian option, then yes it is moral to eat meat.

>>110986
Cool. Did I convince you to go vegan?

jk

>>110988
Again, you're confusing things. You only say that it's morally wrong to eat meat because of your feelings.

>>110991
Wrong is wrong whether I care or not.

>>110992
so you think

>>110991
I think it's wrong for ISIS bomb civilians.

but ISIS thinks it's good.

Does it matter what either of us think?

No. Their behavior is plainly immoral.

>>111002
>plainly immoral
Again, these are just your feelings. I must be speaking to a broken record.

>>111007
You speak of morality as if it is a fantasy.

How could you possibly understand what it is?

>>110969
>When you engage in hypothetical ethical dilemmas you will quickly find that there are right and wrong answers to every situation.
Again, relativism doesn't deny the existence of right and wrong, it merely relativices it, meaning wrong and right are not absolutes, but dependant on the individual and its context. There is still only one right and one wrong answer for each individual, but they don't have to be the same for every one of them.

>>110971
>As I said above, it's easier to be dishonest.
That's not an answer, you are just assuming everyone who is not doing A (or B) is being dishonest (to whom or what?), because there's one truth and there's one truth because it's evident there's one truth, else you are being dishonest, that's a tautology. Change truth for god and you have a religion.

>Most people know it's wrong to kill an animal for no reason
But what about the ones that don't? That's the whole point, you can't just conveniently ignore people who might not share your "knowledge" and dismiss them as retards, that IS the easier thing to do. Furthermore they might have a reason (people tend to do things for a reason, even small kids do things to see what happens), just not one you or most people consider a valid one. Morality is not the product of rationality (everyone's gonna die anyway, so what's the point?), it is the product of empathy. And as such, the right answer for a more empathic being is not the same as the one for a less empathic one. Not being able to understand the decisions of others like eating meat or killing animals for sport doesn't mean they are necessarily in denial, probably most of them are (people usually need to justify their behaviour, particularly the one they feel to be wrong), but there will always be people that simply don't empathize with (other) animals, some might be psychopaths, others might be hunters like Ernest Hemingway was.

>>111015
>>111015
>relativism doesn't deny the existence of right and wrong
Yes it does, because it means that morality depends on someone's opinion.

Meaning that a member of ISIS is just as moral as an American soldier and that's total false.

>>110992
Somehow I doubt you actually believe that.

>>111015
>That's not an answer
Yes it is, and I was elaborate enough. You can disagree with you like, it's not like I really know why people act immorally.


>But what about the ones that don't
Irrelevant. Just because morality is independant of human knowledge does not mean morality is magically imparted in our minds.

Just as some people are more illogical thinkers than others, some people are more immoral than others.

Psychopaths are a good example of intrinsic morality. We know there is something defective in them.

>>111019
Good thing that doesn't matter.

>>111020
Then where is the origin of truth, the source of all morality? If you use any human constructed concepts you prove my point that you don't understand morality at all. From your previous statements you've had the wrong idea of what is right the entire time.

>>111022

I don't know.

Where did gravity come from?

>>111022
A better question may be

Where did logic come from?

Some things just exist man.

>>111023
>>111024
See, this is why you aren't qualified to talk about absolute morality. You were never a true proponent of it.

>>111026
Ridiculous. As if I have to believe in God?

You were just looking for the easy argument.

>>111020
>Yes it is, and I was elaborate enough. You can disagree with you like, it's not like I really know why people act immorally.
The fact you think it's elaborate doesn't make it sufficient. If you don't really know why people act in a certain way you deem inmoral, conversely there must be someone else who does not really know why people act in a certain way you might deem moral. If he doesn't know, then he can't be dishonest, therefore he can be moral while doing something you might deem inmoral (because, unlike him, you posses the necessary information to determine what is moral and what is not). Morality is then dependent on your level of information.


>Irrelevant. Just because morality is independant of human knowledge does not mean morality is magically imparted in our minds.
Isn't that your whole case? Nowhere I spoke of magic, empathy is a biological reality, nurture plays a key role into developing it. On the other hand you speak of it as a god given truth evident to everyone because you claim to posses it, that's the definition of anecdotal evidence unless you can get into other people's minds.

>Just as some people are more illogical thinkers than others, some people are more immoral than others.
In the views of the more moral people perhaps but then even the most immoral people can view them as moral, and in turn the most moral people can view the less moral people as inmoral.

>Psychopaths are a good example of intrinsic morality. We know there is something defective in them.
How do you know you are not a psychopath to someone who claims to hold the one true morality? You know because you are that guy

>>111038
I stated earlier in the thread that if one wants to discuss morality, they have to drop subjectivity.

That's because it leads to a lot of irrelevant arguments. All this stuff about people and their views is just confusing the issue.

Morality is the existence of right and wrong. That's it.

It doesn't have to come from anywhere. It doesn't have to be perfectly understood. It doesn't even have to be obvious.

It's just an abstract concept that exists.

>>111040
>Morality is the existence of right and wrong. That's it.
I agree, but your postulates go beyond that. You say right and wrong can exist independently of people ("It doesn't have to come from anywhere") and therefore to be absolutes they are left to find out or ignore; I say they exist because of people and therefore what's right for a person might be wrong for another one seeing as no two people feel and think the same way, similarly they can find out (acquire more knowledge about what's right and wrong for other people) or ignore them. The ability to understand them is a different thing though, one you seem not to posses (" it's not like I really know why people act immorally").

>It's just an abstract concept that exists.
A perfect sphere is an abstract concept, it doesn't exist in reality, same a perfect standard for morality, the only difference is people tend to disagree less on how a sphere should look like

>>111054
>I say they exist because of people and therefore what's right for a person might be wrong for another one seeing as no two people feel and think the same way

I'm not sure I follow you here. Let me pose a scenario, correct me if I am misrepresenting.

Let's say we have two patients on life support, and we are considering pulling the plug.

These are your people who do not feel the same way.

We know that one person wants their plug pulled, and the other would prefer to stay on life support.

The moral decision for these two people may be different, but the moral reasoning is the same.

Individual preference do not alter the principles that govern right and wrong.

>>111054
The ability to understand them is a different thing though, one you seem not to posses
Are you claiming to understand why people behave immorally? You should call the president or something.

>>111058
>The moral decision for these two people may be different, but the moral reasoning is the same.
There's no reasoning there, you either do their will, or not. In doing so you might be doing the right thing from their perspective, but not necessarily from yours if you believe there are no excuses for murder. Therefore you could at the same time be knowingly doing the wrong thing (again, in your view) and the right one (in theirs).

>Are you claiming to understand why people behave immorally?
Knowing people, even if it's just one person, is more feasible than finding a perfect sphere in reality.

>>111064
>There's no reasoning there

reasoning
ˈrēz(ə)niNG/
noun
the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.


>Knowing people, even if it's just one person, is more feasible than finding a perfect sphere in reality.

???

>>111065
I mean no moral reasoning, you already know what is the right and wrong thing to do (because of your believes), you where asked to do the wrong thing and you do it despite knowing it's wrong. You are being inmoral according to your own believes. Then again, in the views of the guy that just died, you did the right moral thing.

>>111066

Pose your own scenario then. I don't understand the distinction you are making.

How are morals different based on people's beliefs?

Are you suggesting that ISIS members are not immoral? I honestly don't get it.

>>111067
>How are morals different based on people's beliefs?
It is not that hard to understand. If you belief murder to be a inexcusable sin, then pulling the plug is doing the wrong thing. But you might do it anyway out of a sense of loyalty or debt. Similarly, if you hold no such believes, you have no problem doing what you consider to be the right thing. An action is not more objectively moral than a flower is objectively beautiful, a flower remains a flower, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Unsurprisingly most people will agree flowers are nice, same as most people tend to agree on the most basic moral precepts, but when presented with more and more flowers they will start to disagree, perhaps form groups based on their likes and dislikes.Beauty is an abstract concept, but everyone knows beauty when they see it, similarly what some people find beautiful others might find horrid. Regardless, the recognition of this reality doesn't imply a renounce to making judgements of value or considering yours to be above that of others (or beneath them).

>Are you suggesting that ISIS members are not immoral?
Can you think of a situation where an ISIS member is being moral?

>>111069
I am going to need a real world example to understand.

As it stands, I cannot envision a scenario where a person's feelings have anything to do with right and wrong.

>Can you think of a situation where an ISIS member is being moral?
Is there some reason you aren't answering my question? If that's how you feel just say it, fucking hell.

>>111071
That's because right and wrong don't exist in abstract and therefore can be determined independently of people.

>Is there some reason you aren't answering my question?
I remember making a lot of questions, none of which were answered by you (at least directly). Regardless that's not the reason I answered your question with a question. If you can't envision such an scenario then you have either a critical lack of imagination or you are incapable of doing so because you have a complete lack of empathy for people you already passed moral judgement upon, a supposedly objective one according to the laws of maths and physics. The later will make you, at least partially, psychopathic.

>>111072
>That's because right and wrong don't exist in abstract and therefore can be determined independently of people.
Is there a typo here?

>If you can't envision such an scenario
I cannot exist such a scenario because morality does not work that way.

If you have such a brilliant imagination then share it.

>>111073
>I cannot exist such a scenario because morality does not work that way.
I cannot envision such a scenario*

>>111073
ISIS base is being raided by marines, they flee, there's only one door to escape, 2 terrorists remain. They made it to the door, one of them sees a sniper, no ammo, he purposely takes the bullet so his friend can escape. He dies protecting another human being.

That doesn't make him the good guy, that makes him a human being and therefore capable of moral action even within a framework of twisted morality. The guy who lived might go on to leave ISIS or continue to wage Jihad, there's no way to you or for him to know, he just didn't want to see his friend die.

>>111075
>there's no way to you
*for you

>>111075
I didn't ask for a specific situation of an ISIS member behaving morally.

That was YOUR question.

Thanks for nothing, man.

>>111027
Simply saying that something is truth without any backup is empty. The greatest lies ever were passed along as "truths", including your beliefs. You say things are right and wrong, but never prove it. You've spent all day playing like a broken record to that mental midget back there, isn't it time you actually walked the walk?

>>111080
If they can behave morally then they can be moral, it's just a matter of addition of situations to be able to say one is ultimately more moral than inmoral. That goes for everyone, even ISIS members, but obviously it's less likely to happen in their case.

>>111124
>Simply saying that something is truth without any backup is empty
Empty of what? Morality is just another branch of logic. It is not empty in the slightest.

Pose any ethical dilemma and you will see for yourself that morality is objective.

For through logic, sane minds can come to conclusions about what is good and bad.

When you suggest that morality is not objective, you are saying that the ISIS jihadists is equal to the American soldier.

I use this example because when framed this way, we understand clearly that morality does not depend on feelings. The ISIS jihadis, who kills innocents to spread religion, is immoral regardless of his beliefs.

The truth is most of you are objectivists, you just pretend you aren't whenever it might mean changing your behavior.

>>111148
This is a good example. This guy thinks he's arguing for subjectivism, but he's actually on my side.

You are stating that the ISIS fighter can only be moral by making a moral action? Well, what is a moral action?

Obviously it is self evident. By using terms like "the can be moral" you are admitting that morality requires a certain type of behavior.

>>111152
>Well, what is a moral action?
The right thing to do from your perspective

>Obviously it is self evident.
Again, no. That's your dogma, not mine. It might or might not be evident. "I don't know what I should do" is an acceptable moral answer, it recognizes there's there might be a right and wrong decisions but you are not sure which is which. Then what is right thing to do for someone, might be the exact opposite for someone else in the same situation. As explained before, morality can be self-evident in the same way beauty can be, then again same as beauty, you will find people that disagree on the beauty of an object. Beauty and morality are a product of our conciousness, not something that exists independently of it. Someone who thinks people who don't consider beautiful or moral the same things he considers beautiful and moral are just being "dishonest" or "retarded" might themselves have some sort of psychological disorder that prevents them from acknowledging the validity of thoughts and feelings different from theirs (and thus different often contradicting moralities).

>>111166
>The right thing to do from your perspective
You don't even believe this.

The moral scenario you just posed didn't involve anyone's perspective.

The ISIS fighter sacrificed himself to save a friend. That is an objectively moral action.

If you want to demonstrate that morality is dependent on perspective, the give me a scenario that illustrates that.

As it stands, you have only argued for objective morality.

>>111166
Just to be clear, you are suggesting that an ISIS Jihadist is a moral person, so long as he believes killing innocents is moral?

It's not a trap. It's how a moral subjectivist feels.

So is this what you think?

I can murder my family, and so long as it's moral from my perspective, this is a moral action?

>>111168
>The moral scenario you just posed didn't involve anyone's perspective.
It involves mine and yours to begin with. Someone else might judge it to be inmoral to save a terrorist life.

Problem doesn't lie in situations, problem is that you believe morality to exist in the vacuum and is there for us to discover as if it were a new continent. That's a metaphysical view of morality, it's as if you were speaking of the human soul. I reject such abstractions. Morality has a material origin. Think of money, objectively is just a piece of paper or metal, it's worth the things you buy with it because people believe them to be, we could be using seashells or bitcoins. Similarly an action is objectively just that, an action, whether it is moral or not, that depends on each one to decided, different people and different societies might accept different things as the moral thing, same as for some people seashells or bitcoins are worthless while for others they might be valuable.

>>111172
Stop dodging the question and over complicating things.

If you believe morality is based on perspective, then anything is moral.


I can murder my family.
I can blow up a hospital.

So long as I feel this is moral.

Is that how you feel?

IF NOT then stop pretending to be a subjectivist.

>>111169
To begin with, if he thought he was killing innocents, then he himself would be recognizing to be inmoral (perhaps necessarily inmoral for the greater good or whatever but inmoral nonetheless). Someone who murders his family might be amoral, inmoral (knowing what he is doing is wrong), or even moral if he reasons his family is evil and that it's up to him to stop them (maybe he was part of the Mason family or maybe he was just hallucinating)

>>111175
>if he thought he waa killing innocents then he himself would be recognizing to be immoral

Yes, because killing innocents is an objectively immoral action.

We understand this because there are objective moral principles which exist.

Thanks for the support.

>>111174
>If you believe morality is based on perspective, then anything is moral.
And everything is inmoral as well. That's what happens in the realm of possibilities until you judge an action, what you fail to understand is that it is the observation what determines the result, any observation is as valid as another one. Someone who is color blind might tell you the sky is green, someone who perceives ultraviolet might tell you it's purplish, they are both correct in their appreciations.

>>111175
People always try to alter to ethical dilemmas, thinking that proves morality is subjective.

But by doing this (like suggesting that killing your family is moral only IF your family is evil) you are actually saying that there are underlying principles which govern right and wrong.

If there was no objective morality, you could say that killing your family is moral regardless of other factors.

It should not matter if the family deserves it, or if the killer is crazy. But of course it does matter, and it's wrong to kill innocent people regardless of how you feel about it.

>>111177
>everything is inmoral as well
I just pet my dog and gave her a pillow. Was this an immoral action?

>it is the observation what determines the result
What does this mean?


>Someone who is color blind might tell you the sky is green, someone who perceives ultraviolet might tell you it's purplish, they are both correct in their appreciations

Correct in the appreciations? What does that mean?

The sky is blue... having defective eyes (or being immoral) doesn't change anything.

>>111176
>Yes, because killing innocents is an objectively immoral action.
That's relative, if killing an innocent somehow saves millions of other innocent lives then doing it can be both morally wrong from your "objective" perspective but right from a perspective that incorporates a cost-benefit analysis. Problem with the later is that you can't be sure, even if you live a virtuous life, that you are not indirectly causing the apocalypse, so it's impossible to have certainty about what is ultimately moral and what is not. Problem with the former is that you might knowingly bring up apocalypse because that'd be the right thing to do according to your objective morality.

>>111182
>if killing an innocent somehow saves millions of other innocent lives

Why do innocent lives matter?

Are you suggesting there is an underlying principle here?

>>111178
>But by doing this (like suggesting that killing your family is moral only IF your family is evil) you are actually saying that there are underlying principles which govern right and wrong.
Not really, evil depends on your perception, perhaps he was right and everyone else is wrong about what evil is because we can't perceive as he does. There's always that possibility, difference is that I recognize it to be a possibility, you don't.

>If there was no objective morality, you could say that killing your family is moral regardless of other factors.
Again, no. You could say it's simply amoral, which is neither moral or inmoral.

>But of course it does matter, and it's wrong to kill innocent people regardless of how you feel about it.
see >>111182

>>111180
>I just pet my dog and gave her a pillow. Was this an immoral action?
Having a dog might be

>What does this mean?
An action might moral or not depending on the observer, different observes might find the same action to be moral and inmoral

>Correct in the appreciations? What does that mean?
That word is as you see it

>The sky is blue... having defective eyes (or being immoral) doesn't change anything.
Regular eyes could be labelled defective compared to ones that can see the full spectrum of light (that's why I mention UV vision)

>>111184
>Are you suggesting there is an underlying principle here?
No, I'm merely taking your assumptions at face value

>>111189
>evil depends on your perception

You have yet to demonstrate this. The ethical dilemmas this far have only reinforced objective morality.

>>111189
>Again, no. You could say it's simply amoral, which is neither moral or inmoral.
How can you make a judgement like this?

I thought morality wasn't real. So who's to say whether it's immoral, amoral, or moral? You cannot avoid this. Several times now you reveal a grasp on intrinsic morality, though you deny it.

>>111193
>The ethical dilemmas this far have only reinforced objective morality.
I'm sure that is your subjective appreciation.

>How can you make a judgement like this?
Anyone can, the fact you are able to pass judgement doesn't imply it to be absolute.

>>111191
>Having a dog might be
I didn't ask about pet ownership. Why is it that the subjectivist must always alter the scenario to fit his philosophy?

It's just a dog. I pet her and gave her a pillow. That's the entirety of the scenario.

But you refuse to admit the obvious, that this is a GOOD action.


>An action might moral or not depending on the observer, different observes might find the same action to be moral and inmoral
Humans have many opinions. It doesn't mean anything for the fundamental principles of our world.

I don't understand gravity, but that doesn't matter at all. It's still there.


>That word is as you see it
I understand the word. What do "appreciations" have to do with right and wrong.

Quit dancing around the topic.

>>111194
You have utterly failed to support your position.

You cannot even provide an example illustrating the subjectivity of morality. Which I cannot blame you for, because the example does not exist.

In every attempt to test morality, we are reminded of undeniable rights and wrongs. Like the value of innocent life.

But it is quite foolish to be so supportive of a philosophy which cannot be demonstrated to be true.

>everything is just opinions

This is not an argument. It is an opinion. That is fine, but irrelevant.

>>111195
>It's just a dog. I pet her and gave her a pillow. That's the entirety of the scenario.
Giving an animal a pillow might be inmoral if there's people more in need of that pillow

>It doesn't mean anything for the fundamental principles of our world.
You are speaking of ideas that can't exist independently of people, world is much more older than people.

>I don't understand gravity, but that doesn't matter at all. It's still there.
Morality is neither a fundamental force nor is everyone affected by it

>What do "appreciations" have to do with right and wrong.
Right and wrong are valuations of a reality that is neither right or wrong, it simply is

>>111201
>In every attempt to test morality, we are reminded of undeniable rights and wrongs. Like the value of innocent life.
Life is not valuable per se, it's only as valuable as other life finds it to be.

>everything is just opinions
Everything exists independently of opinions, calling something right or wrong is the opinion

>>111203
>Giving an animal a pillow might be inmoral if there's people more in need of that pillow

Why do people's needs matter?

Once again, you demonstrate objective moral values.

>You are speaking of ideas that can't exist independently of people

Morality is no more an "idea" than rationality. We did not invent it, it is something we can perceive and master.

>Morality is neither a fundamental force nor is everyone affected by it
Debatable, but It was merely an example that human understanding does not affect principles.

>>111203
>Right and wrong are valuations of a reality that is neither right or wrong, it simply is
What? I know reality simply is. Just like objective morality "simply is."

>>111206
>Life is not valuable per se, it's only as valuable as other life finds it to be.

So things that people value have value.

This is one of the underlying foundations of objective morality.

How are you not getting this. You keep supporting my argument.

>Everything exists independently of opinions
Yes like morality... that's what I've been saying.

>>111207
>Why do people's needs matter?
No particular reason, if you feel no empathy to them but only to the dog then it's right for you to give the dog a pillow because he is more worthy of it, if you feel more empathy for people then the right thing is to make sure you give them a pillow first because they are more worthy. You can be moral (from your perspective) by doing either thing, others might consider what you did is inmoral.

>Morality is no more an "idea" than rationality. We did not invent it, it is something we can perceive and master.
How can you be sure you are being rational without someone else's input? Crazy people think of themselves as rational.

>What? I know reality simply is. Just like objective morality "simply is."
That's like saying I know world is just like god simply is, it doesn't follow for anyone who doesn't find the later to be evident. You solved this by calling them dishonest and retards, that is the closest thing to a secular religion.

>>111209
>So things that people value have value.
Value is not intrinsic, what is valuable for you it's not necessarily valuable for someone else. Again, same as beauty.

>Yes like morality... that's what I've been saying.
That what you are yet to prove.

>>111212
You seem to think that because people have different opinions on morality, that means morality is subjective. For about the thousandth time, opinions are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if you think math is stupid or you don't understand it.

2 + 2 = 4

The subjectivist takes this simple fact and may reply
>but what about an alternate reality where numbers are backwards and there is no logic


I don't know what I was thinking trying to debate objectivity with a subjectivist.

It doesn't even make sense now that I think about it. You have been programmed to reject inalienable truths.

I just want you to know that subjectivity is an interesting though experiment. For example, how do you know you aren't crazy? You can't really know, but it makes little sense to presume insanity.

That's what you're doing. You're presuming that we cannot make judgements despite all evidence to the contrary.

>>111214
>2 + 2 = 4
That's is an axiom, not a fundamental (physical) reality, it's a simplification thereof.

Riemann mathematically proved it was 5 and Gauss that it was 3, Frege also proved it was 5 and renounced to maths. Increasingly exotic results have been proved since the advent of computing. I wouldn't call any of those men stupid and computers are literal objects (it doesn't get more objective than that). This happened in this reality, maybe it's you the one who is not sufficiently familiar with it.

Nonetheless, I think I finally get you. You think morality is one because, even if someone's perception is severely warped (or maybe it is ours the one which is and we haven't noticed), there's still right and wrong actions for him (and for us) even though they may differ or be opposites as a result of our different or opposite perceptions. That just means the idea of morality exists in them, not that is is one or an "inalienable truth", again, same a beauty, if someone asked you is something is beautiful and you said no you are being truthful, if someone asked me if that same thing is beautiful and I say yes then I am being truthful. That's where subjectivism lies, it's not denying beauty exists, merely acknowledging that is neither evident, the result of an equation or a fundamental truth that we ought to discover.

>>111238
>Riemann mathematically proved it was 5 and Gauss that it was 3

>>111238
>You think morality is one because, even if someone's perception is severely warped, there's still right and wrong actions for him
Yes.
>>111238
>even though they may differ or be opposites as a result of our different or opposite perceptions
No. That is what you think. For the millionth time, perceptions and opinions are irrelevant to right and wrong.

>That just means the idea of morality exists in them

False. Logical action does not exist within me, just as moral action does not exist within me.

They are concepts which my human mind can perceive.

The problem here is you are incapable of viewing morality seperate from human beings. It is the curse of subjectivity. Honestly mate I think you are pretty far gone.

You have the ability to perceive reality. Truth, ethics, justice, these are not simple opinions. They are principles which can be deduced logically, indifferent to human emotion.

Do not presume that you understand objective morality. You cannot even imagine it,

>>111241
>>Riemann mathematically proved it was 5 and Gauss that it was 3
Are you really trying to suggest that 2 + 2 does not equal 5?

This is the kind of thinking that gets in the way of understanding. You are deliberately ignoring the points made by this example. As if your goal is only to reduce debate into "it's just opinion."

Why? What do you get from destroying objectivity?

>>111241
>No. That is what you think. For the millionth time, perceptions and opinions are irrelevant to right and wrong.
Right or wrong don't exist independently of people, a superior morality that exists in the vacuum is as much of a fundamental reality as god is if your "proof" relies on axioms that you perceive to be as evident as math and that can't be falsified (anyone who doesn't perceive them as you do is dismissed as either dishonest or retarded).

>Truth, ethics, justice, these are not simple opinions. They are principles which can be deduced logically, indifferent to human emotion.
Again, those are religious views. Everyone has their own, that's the only observable fact, everything else is an ideological construct to hold everyone else accountable to your personal standard of truth, ethics and justice.

>Do not presume that you understand objective morality. You cannot even imagine it,
If you can understand subjectivity in the appreciation of beauty, then you can surely imagine subjective morality, even if you don't necessarily understand it

>>111242
>Are you really trying to suggest that 2 + 2 does not equal 5?
Based exclusively on mathematical reasoning in can equal a bunch of other numbers. 2 + 2 equals 4 because it's an axiom. It's only when dealing with reality (2 apples plus 2 apples) that things become more clear, but then you are not reasoning those 2 plus 2 apples into the existence of 4, reality is that there is apples, addition and quantification only exist in your mind, they might be considered parts of 1 apple tree, or the contents of your stomach.

>>111250
>Right or wrong don't exist independently of people
Yet you cannot provide a scenario that demonstrates this. You tried several times, and only supported objective morality.


>god
>those are religious views
I am an atheist. Nice try.

>Everyone has their own
irrelevant.
>that's the only observable fact
please stop.

>If you can understand subjectivity in the appreciation of beauty, then you can surely imagine subjective morality, even if you don't necessarily understand it

I understand subjectivity. I went to public school too. I understand that you think your subjectivty erases objectivity, but that's just ridiculous. That's not even really how subjectivity works.

I'll be here if you ever think of an example that demonstrates your views. Otherwise, this is going nowhere.

>>111253
Good job ignoring the point and focusing on irrelevant nonsense. The goal of subjectivity, plain and simple.

>>111254
>Yet you cannot provide a scenario that demonstrates this. You tried several times, and only supported objective morality.
It's impossible for me to do this if you have right and wrong clearly defined because you posses objective morality (according to you). It's like trying to tell you to try eating something I like because it tastes good, you think it tastes bad and not only for you for me as well because taste is objective/doesn't depend on people/it's one universal truth. I can't demonstrate it tastes good for me because in doing so I'm either qualified as dishonest or a retard or told I'm supporting objective morality because I might agree with you.

>I am an atheist. Nice try.
The secular was implied (as in "secular religion")

>please stop.
It is though

>I'll be here if you ever think of an example that demonstrates your views. Otherwise, this is going nowhere.
It's not my ability to substantiate my argument but your inability to understand it the ones that makes communication impossible, imo

>>111256
Relevant and irrelevant are also subjective

>>111262
>It's impossible for me to do this
No it's not. Just do it.

>>111262
>Relevant and irrelevant are also subjective
Good god, anon. Come on.

>>111263
That's what I've been doing, I just don't think doing it once more will be of any use to either of us

>>111265
It would probably be of use to me. Every ethical dilemma reveals the objective morality which we can perceive through logic and reasoning.

If it weren't for this foundation, moral dilemmas would have no answers.

Given this, It would be wise for you to refrain from making any examples.

>>111268
>Every ethical dilemma reveals the objective morality which we can perceive through logic and reasoning.
It's precisely that kind of axiom or revelation the one that impedes me from even trying, you don't argue with faith

>If it weren't for this foundation, moral dilemmas would have no answers.
They have answers, multiple, sometimes even contradictory ones depending on your approach

>>111270
You are such a coward you won't even try to demonstrate your views.

SAD.

>>111271
I already did, but I'd be insane if I kept doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

For that something needs to change, and I'm afraid that something is you.

>>111272
>I already did
You posed an ethical scenario which supported MY case for objective morality.

You said that an ISIS soldier could be moral if he behaved morally by sacrificing himself.

In this scenario, you demonstrate that morality is not dependant on perspective(your view), but choice of action(my view).

You have totally failed to illustrate your point and have apparently given up trying.

>>111274
>You posed an ethical scenario which supported MY case for objective morality.
That's your interpretation, I understand you are satisfied with it, but from my perspective you failed to understood it. I starting to think you are physically capable of.

>In this scenario, you demonstrate that morality is not dependant on perspective(your view), but choice of action(my view).
Nowhere I suggested that, that was your own (mis)interpretation

The ISIS was an example you requested not any of the ones I freely offered btw.

>>111276
>I starting to think you are physically capable of.
*I'm, *incapable

>>111276
>Nowhere I suggested that, that was your own (mis)interpretation
>everything is just an opinion!

You were supposed to demonstrate that morality is dependent only on individual perspective.

You stated that an ISIS soldier could be considered moral if he sacrificed himself for a friend.

Where did perspective factor in here? Nowhere.

He was not moral because of his perspective, which is your case.

He was moral because of CHOICE he made. This is objective morality.

This not my interpretation. It is what you said.

And you would understand that if you didn't have such contempt for logic and reason.

>>111279
I also remember saying "Someone else might judge it to be inmoral to save a terrorist life."

So, two different perspectives, two different opposing visions of what is the moral action (let him die because he is a terrorist, protect him because he is your friend). None more valid than the other one. Things become even less clear if you consider morality lies not only in the moral action per se but its eventual consequences (what if the terrorist who survived went on to become a dictator, kill millions, what if he found a pacific solution and went on to win the nobel peace price).

What is the point of making examples if you are not going to follow or do so selectively?

>>111289
>Someone else might judge it to be inmoral to save a terrorist life
What does that have to do with anything?

I have grown tired of your irrelevant arguments. Over and over the same asinine "points."

You know nothing. You cannot even reason, let alone dare to explore morality.

>morality lies not only in the moral action per se but its eventual consequences

So, once again, morality is not dependent on perspective. It is dependant on action.

It must be 6 posts now I've tried to get you to realize you're arguing against yourself.

I am truly amazed, congratulations.

>>111292
>What does that have to do with anything?
It has everything to do with it, an action is just that, an action, morality stems from people's interpretation of said actions, different people might interpret conflicting actions to be moral. The ISIS member's interpretation of his own action is just that, another interpretation.

>So, once again, morality is not dependent on perspective. It is dependant on action.
Seeing an actions can be qualified as both moral or inmoral depending on who you ask there's no way to know what objective morality is, because it doesn't exist independently of the subjects that evaluate (including but not limited to the ones who perform) said actions.Saying else is your assumption, one which cannot be disproved because you qualify it to be evident, not needing proof but "guidance" so I can see it as well.

>>111301
>Seeing an actions can be qualified as both moral or inmoral depending on who you ask

Except even in your own example that is not how it works.

Fuck off retard.

>>111326
>Except even in your own example that is not how it works.
First it's not my example, it's the case you asked for me to make.

Secondly, as said before, morality lies in the evaluation of said actions by people, actions are just that, neither moral or inmoral per se. Then what is moral is subjective (dependant on the subject) and doesn't exist outside him.

>>111336
No it wasn't. I asked you for an example of your view but you are too stupid to provide one.

You are the one who asked for an example for ISIS behaving morally. You answered your own question YOU IDIOT

AND I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT.

Jesus man, you need help.

>>111342
>No it wasn't. I asked you for an example of your view but you are too stupid to provide one
What the point if you're going to call me a retard anyway because I don't interpret my own examples as you do? Again, there's no room for falsifiability in your theory.

>You are the one who asked for an example for ISIS behaving morally.
In response to your own question about them, and you said you weren't able to imagine it, should I be right in calling you stupid for that?

>AND I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT.
The fact you keep repeating yourself doesn't make you right though. Perhaps you should try to explain yourself in a clear detailed way, yet you are unable to do so without abandoning your assumptions about morality. It's natural for anyone else not to be able to understand you when sharing your axioms is a requisite to do so

>>111345
If you are too much of an intellectual coward to express your views then just stop posting.

>>111349
I already did, problem is that you keep misrepresenting them. What is there to gain to do so once again besides being called a retard if I do and a coward if I don't? Can you answer that?

Video
https://youtu.be/QvuzSRewUqQ

author's Note;

Limpopo - fictional country of Russian fairy tales.
Aibolit - a doctor from Russian fairy tales.

Prankery played Congresswoman US: Russia attacks the Limpopo and found Aybolita mode Video: Prankery contacted Maxine Waters, posing as Prime Minister of Ukraine Vladimir Groisman. Prankery Lexus and Vova, posing as Prime Minister of Ukraine Vladimir Groisman, phoned to the member of the House of Representatives of Congress Maxine Waters. During the conversation pranker knocked Waters recognition that the US president Donald Tramrp wants to lift the sanctions with Russia. "So he talked about how to remove them, and then talked about how to revise them. So I do not know what his plans are, but he must have realized that they will be hard to push through the Senate, so now he has handed back , "- said the congresswoman. In addition, she told prankeram about Hillary Clinton sorstoyanii after the defeat in the presidential election. According to her, a democrat is very worried about this, and will probably be experiencing a lifetime. "It's a huge disappointment, and very painful so that it will not be easy to forget This will always be with her, as one of the biggest surprises ... in her life..", - He said in a conversation it. After that, "Groisman" decided to discuss with the US escalation of the conflict in the Donbass.

>>111352
>What is there to gain
Knowledge. Something a subjectivist has zero interest in.

>>111359
>Knowledge.
I already know myself and don't think you have any real knowledge to offer and I'm not interested in being preached "evident truths"

>>111361
Besides the ones you already preached I mean

>>111361
You can't express your views.

You can't even follow a conversation.

You don't know anything, you arrogant buffoon.

>>111364
I have already expressed them I just don't see a point to keep doing so if the knowledge you have to offer consists on calling me names when you get frustrated

>>111366
>I have already expressed them
You have expressed them in the abstract, just before contradicting yourself with a real world example.

So no, you don't even know what your views are.

I promise I won't insult you if you try, but you will probably fail again.

>>111368
Explain my contradiction then, without relaying on any assumptions regarding morality

>>111371
>Morality is objective
>Here is a subjective example of morality
>And another
>Also I have zero (0) examples of objective morality, but there is only objective morality

>>110708

33 times per day. Who the fuck even wants to hear the same children shit song 33 times in a fucking day when you just want to do your job like any other meat eater.

Also RussiaToday stop selling your ass to Stalin Jr.

>>111373

more like

>you: i think morality is subjective
>me: okay show me an example
>you: *tries to show an example of subjective morality*
>you: *accidentally shows an example of objective morality*
>me: hey you made a mistake, here's why...
>you: that's just your opinion

Welcome to the nightmare that is a conversation with you.

>>111376
point out this objective example, because I'm pretty sure you're in the wrong thread or delusional. Quote it.

>>111377
>>111377
>objective example
You mean your subjective example, which was accidentally objective.
>>111075

>>111379
God damn who the fuck would use that as an example of subjectivity, that's insane, how am I supposed to defend that? What a fucking moron. Also you should get 4chanX or learn what the 3rd number in 158/0/20/1 is and what it means when it goes up by 1 when someone replies in a thread.

Ok, let me take a crack at it. He didn't save the guy solely because he wanted him to live, that was a dying afterthought, he got himself killed because he was sick of diddling the same slave-wife and wanted his 72 virgins and 38 american dollars that he would get from Allah by getting killed fighting the infidels. That would mean his death was from malice towards another human being and an active desire to have ownership of 72 other souls in heaven, which should be condemned as morally reprehensible.

God damn that's some weaselly bullshit, but it's the best I could do.

>>111376
That doesn't really explain anything, perhaps it does for you, but don't expect me to be able to read your mind. Also >>111373 >>111377 is a different poster

>>111380
I did, it was not an example of subjectivity, conversation was as following

>Are you suggesting that ISIS members are not immoral?
Can you think of a situation where an ISIS member is being moral?
>If you have such a brilliant imagination then share it.
Hence >>111075

>>111380
>Also you should get 4chanX
Don't, it's a virus

>>111382
t. Hiroshima Nagasaki

>>111380
>learn what the 3rd number
I ought to pay attention to that, thanks.

Nice to know this thread wasn't a complete waste of time.

>>111381
It doesn't really matter if you were attempting to illustrate moral subjectivity.

The point is in your scenario, you illustrate objective moral principles.

>>111386
>It doesn't really matter if you were attempting to illustrate moral subjectivity.
I wasn't to begin with.

>The point is in your scenario, you illustrate objective moral principles.
No such thing

>>111387

>No such thing

Right. That's why the ISIS soldier had to do something morally good to be moral.

Why wasn't he just moral because he felt so?

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with chopping off heads?

protip: that's objective morality.

>>111392
>That's why the ISIS soldier had to do something morally good to be moral.
He just did something, that something is neither moral or inmoral, morality lies in people's valuation of said behaviour. Morality is not objective because people have different often contradictory valuations of the same actions, none is more right or wrong than the other.

>>111395
So it didn't matter what the ISIS jihadist did in the scenario. He is moral regardless of what he does.

Why did he save a friend, instead of fuck a goat?


Here is my example of subjective morality. Tell me if there is anything wrong here.

>a guy rapes a kid to death
>that guy thinks raping kids is A-OK
>it is impossible to say whether this is good or bad

Of course this is nonsense. Stop acting like you believe this garbage you idiot.

>>111399
>So it didn't matter what the ISIS jihadist did in the scenario. He is moral regardless of what he does.
No, he simply is. Whether that "is" is moral or not depends on an evaluation of his behaviour (morality IS the evaluation), different people (including him) will render different often conflicting evaluations because. Depending on who you ask he might be moral or inmoral, thus, morality is subjective.

>Here is my example of subjective morality. Tell me if there is anything wrong here.
It is possible for me, so it is for you and I think most people will agree with us. Subjectivity doesn't presume the impossibility of individually determining good or bad. But the fact most people agree on it doesn't make it truth for other than "most people". Neither does subjectivity presume that the lack of objective universally shared truth is an impediment to act based on your morality (ie stopping a rapist).

>>111408
You think that because people have different opinions, there is no universal morality.

Am I understanding?

>>111423
I think morality lies in those opinions, it'd be universal if everyone had the same opinion, alas they not. The only way for morality to be universal would be for it to exist independently of people, like god or a fundamental force such as gravity if you will, but I don't believe that to be the case.

>>111424
So you think morality is an opinion.

A cannibal-murderer is bad, only because I feel so?

>>111425
If you are able to feel empathy then you can be moral, if you don't then you can't. Being capable of emotions is a sine qua non condition to be moral. Then reasoning comes into play. So I'll say it's bad because you feel and reason it to be bad. Then again, someone might feel and reason it to be good, while I do not understand such feelings or reasoning, I don't deny that moral reality is as valid for the one who made it, as mine is for me.

>>111432
So morality is just opinion?

What the fuck are you saying.

It's like pulling teeth trying to get a concise answer out of you.

>>111437
Sorry if my answers are not a simple as yours, it'd be much easier to say morality is the same for everyone one and if you don't see it then you are a retard or dishonest. But as pointed out before, I don't consider that to be an argument.

>>111446
>morality is the same for everyone one

Since when? Weren't you just saying that it depends on individual reasoning?

You have issues. Figure out what you believe before trying to tell other people.

>>111453
Stop selectively reading my posts. I said "it'd be much easier to say", meaning that's not what I'm saying but that such a thing (morality being the same for everyone one) would be easier to say because it appeals to an evident, and if it's not evident for you, then it's you who are wrong by definition. Again, not an argument, just something easy to say. No interested in saying easy things.

>>111469

I have not selectively read anything.

You have outright contradicted yourself just now.

>morality being the same for everyone one

This isn't even subjectivism. You have no idea what's going on right now.

>>111472
Again, by "it'd be much easier to say morality is the same for everyone" I simply meant it'd be easier to say what you are saying, not that it is what I think is the case.

>>111474
You're pissing me the fuck off with your sentences. This is immoral behavior.

>I said "it'd be much easier to say", meaning that's not what I'm saying but that such a thing (morality being the same for everyone one) would be easier to say because it appeals to an evident, and if it's not evident for you, then it's you who are wrong by definition.

Look at that shit.

>>111477
It was not on purpose, I hope my last reply cleared up things.

>>111477
btw, I'd like to point out that if there's a truth to be learn from this thread, that is you are a most unpleasant person to debate with, it wouldn't be such a bad thing if you weren't also so wrong about everything.