>from the alien's perspective we are the aIiens

File: Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Photo.jpg (312KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 2000x1333px

~Black Science Guy

>>38590933
His boyfriend with the bow tie is so epic

File: chimpout.gif (852KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 300x225px

If I was an ayy, I'd stay far away from this degenerate planet. God knows what these monkeys will do to me.

File: CTY6ddIWoAAmPoJ.jpg (51KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x600px

I love my humans.

They are grass-fed and I kill them alienely, so It's ok to kill and eat them.
I would never kill a fellow alien though, we are superior to humans in everything, they are just dumb animals compared to us.

File: g7Rm32F.jpg (64KB, 720x534px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 720x534px

Radical human-rights activist. You are a dirty hippy.

File: supermancry_1050_591_81_s_c1.jpg (129KB, 1050x591px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1050x591px

Why don't aliens just put the whole world in a bottle?

>>38591272
>>38591235
Technically our morals apply to us because society agrees on it. If humans are capable of killing animals, then they can eat animals, right or wrong. If aliens are capable of killing and eating humans, then theres nothing we can do to stop them.

>>38591455

>Technically our morals apply to us because society agrees on it.

90% of Danes agree that forced circumcision should be illegal but it's still (technically mistakenly) considered legal there.

>>38591235
If an alien offered me say another 30 years of life with all the good food I could eat, movies, books, sex etc. at his high tech alien pad with the understanding that I would be killed painlessly in my sleep and eaten at the end I would take it friendo.

>>38591455
>Technically our morals apply to us because society agrees on it
What about lesser advanced human societies that don't adapt our morals into their societies?
Should our morals apply to them? Should we treat a cannibal 50 IQ human in Africa the same we treat an University Professor in Europe?

>>38591599
Obviously not the same way, but probably not massacre them if it's not necessary.
Especially if the cannibalism is done after the other humans are dead from natural causes or old age and not killed for the purpose of being eaten (in that case I don't see a problem with cannibalism, we bury corpses into the ground or burn them, they eat them, to each their own).

>>38591599
We would treat a cannibal as a criminal in our society. So obviously we shouldn't treat them the same as a professor. If our moral values are at odds, whoever wins is dominant. The point is morals aren't objective, and aliens could choose to eat humans if we were unable to resist.

>>38591708
Morals have to be objective, otherwise we could say it's ok for one person or one group of people to do something when it's not ok for someone else and create injustice.

>>38591742
Problem is that morals aren't objective, and can only be objective with Religion.
Since morals aren't objective, they depend solely on what is most commonly believed in a particular society.

>>38591785
I'm telling you why it's not possible to have morality that is subjective. It would mean judging actions based on who does them instead of the actions themselves. You can't say it's ok for one group of people to kill and rape and it's not ok for another.
What religion are you talking about? Certainly not the Christian religion, with a God that commits murders left and right but makes it one of his commandments to not murder.

>>38590195
I always wonder, if aliens are real (There's gotta be some lifeform out there) will they be more advanced than us, or will they just be fish from space?

>>38591937
Its a different group saying its ok not one group saying its ok for another group. Nobody agrees its correct when other people do it, but that is entirely their own judgement, not an objective moral standard.

>>38591969
So you're saying if people in a society democratically vote for murder to be made legal they can start murdering anyone they want?

>>38591785
i don't agree with it.

First of all no religion gives you a consistent ethical system, only a bunch of vague statements that are contradictory, and can be interpreted as you the reader wants.

Secondly, yes there is a way to arrive at objective moral and ethics that don't require any religious or supernatural belief:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQvlV__W73A

>>38592001
They can technically if noone stops them. I don't share that moral value that would make me say it is correct to do so. But I can't stop them.

>>38592121
Of course if you can't stop them you can't stop them. But it would still be ethically "bad" because it would make sentient beings suffer (phenomenologically experienced as "bad") or it would take away future possible happy states of being (experienced as "good") from these sentient individuals.
It still would be objectively "bad", unless there was a good reason to do so (for example, maximizing "good" states and minimising "bad" states for a larger group of people, like killing terrorists or serial killers).

>>38592200
I agree with you that we shouldn't unnecessarily let sentient things suffer. And I am glad I live in a society that agrees with that way of living. I still don't think thats an objective thing though. How are statements and values even supposed to exist objectively independent of a human mind?

>>38592241
Numbers don't exist out there in the real world but you and me can agree that they are objective. 2 is always 2. 2+2 is always 4.
Without this we wouldn't have language and wouldn't be able to talk to each other now.

>>38592270
Numbers are a description. Values and words are something else and relative.

>>38592298
Words are also a description of concepts and if we can't agree on the meaning of a word then what is the point of having words anyway?

>>38592103
I don't believe objective morals can ever exist, since they don't exist outside of life.

Morals are just another abstract concept that only exists within the minds of intelligent life. Morals are just another system that evolved within our minds in order to help us pass on our genes.

For those who believe in Religion though, there can be objective morals if they believe in a sentient being who has decided what is right and wrong, but otherwise morals are just relative.

>>38592270
>>38592298
Even then not everybody understands
Ichi ni san shi go roku etc.
Or
Uno dos tres cuatro etc.

>>38592319
And blind people don't get to look at things the same way as we do but you wouldn't say that objects are different for blind people. Objects are the same and what changes is our perception of them.

>>38592309
Thats the thing, people agree on a meaning of a word, but other languages still exist. Just like other moral codes still exist.

>>38592331
Sensory information is still not something as abstract as morals.

>>38592333
I believe different moral codes are illogical.
If it's not ethically and morally correct for people in the USA to murder each other why should it be OK for some African tribe that has never seen the outside world?
If an American somehow travels to the village of the African tribe and blends in does it become morally correct for him to murder as well? but not if he comes back to Africa?
Actions should always be either correct or incorrect regardless of the environment.

>>38592433
What people define as correct or incorrect differs. Moral relativism does not mean a moral code constantly changes, it means they are different to different people. There is no objective code to draw from, there is no objective code to be judged on. Nothing stops these actions but societal definitions and actions. If societies disagree, they can leave each other alone or conquer each other. Won't change what somebody feels is ok to do, might change what they are allowed to do. Clearly not everyone agrees. You agree that your morals are correct and can try to persuade someone with arguments. But someone else thinks their morals are correct, or they wouldn't follow that moral system.

Few people act thinking their actions are unjustified.

There is no solution to the collisions of these systems. There is no objective system to conpare to. There might as well be no morals but the ones we define for ourselves. I don't know how many other ways I can explain this.