So, today the topic is; Do humans understand morality? Do

We have laws, don't we, dummy?

File: 7e0cea51694257c236026b1343b847de.jpg (95KB, 688x920px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 688x920px

>>19117648

Yeah, but law isn't an objective physical law.

DOUBLE DUMMY.

>>19117653
Morality has nothing to do with being physical, faggot.

>>19117657

I didn't say that morality was physical, but I did question the rationality of developing an ethical code because we don't understand the implications of our actions well enough to divine meaning from our interpretations of them, nigger.

>>19117664
Not everything has to have a divine meaning to be understood, gay motherfucking ass spelunker. We understand enough. That is, hurting someone else is wrong. That's all we need to know to not do it.

>>19117686

What if they're personally responsible for raping a million babies, and plan to rape a billion more, you fucking bubble blowin' double baby? What then?

Furthermore, is it wrong to rape a baby to create world peace and usher in an age of enlightenment?

File: 1324621177001.jpg (49KB, 374x430px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 374x430px

>>19117686
>gay motherfucking ass spelunker
kek
>hurting someone else is wrong
Not really, 9-year-old children do it all the time by bullying.

>>19117686
>>19117697

By the way, "divine" means "to determine", more or less. So I meant, we don't know enough about reality to determine what the actual meaning of our actions is.

File: tmp_2569-ZTXWGpS-677544964.jpg (71KB, 580x875px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 580x875px

>>19117637
Do humans understand morality?

Not any of the humans who asked that question in that way. At least an understanding of first order logic, specifically in regards to the difference between existential and universal truth is required in order to have a conversation about morality, let alone an understanding of its application in regards to the properties of the reality that the conversationalists exist within during the aforementioned conversation. These types of dialogues are known as "moral."

Without acknowledging the difference between subjective and objective reality--which requires at least an understanding of first order logic--all conversation about morality amounts to shouting contests between contesting dogmas, including the type of shouting that is so violent that it applies the properties of the reality that the shouters exist within during the aforementioned contest in order to silence the other contestents. These types of dialogues are known as "not moral."

I will now rephrase the question that you asked in not a moral way, and I will ask it with a slight variation in order to demonstrate with the properties of the forum my post exists within how to ask questions regarding the existence of morality, in a morale way.

Do you understand morality?

>>19117706
>9 year Olds do it so it's okay

Wew lad

>>19117752

I understand the point you're making here, but you should know that the OP posts was just formulated in such a way to provoke thought and bump the thread, not to espouse any specific ideological belief.

>>19117873
Thank you for replying to my post, so that I might have the opportunity to participate in this dialogue with you, in this thread. My response to your statement is to use the properties of this forum to portray a shout of the following dogmatic truth, directed at your person: "No you!"

I have enjoyed this dialogue, and I choose not to participate with additional posts in this thread from this point in time onward.

>>19117957

NOOOO

YYYOOOOUUUU