Transparentist
"[@Cirrus Light":](/1552457#comment_6609662
@*)
`TL:DR:* Morals are about what people think is right or wrong not beneficial to society or not and i never claimed you cant punish a murderer just because the murderer thinks murder is a ok. We dont use other peoples moralities to decide if something is illegal or not@
`
So because you can't accept that good and evil is entirely based upon whoever looks at something it has to be objective.
Non.
The fact that others can disagree with you on what is right or wrong is evidence for there not being an objective right or wrong. Does that stop you from you saying anything is right or wrong? No, as stated before it simply means you are judging whoever by your morality.
I never said you should judge everyone by their own morality. I dont care wether you thought theft is bad or not, if you steal you'll be punished by the law.
Murder isn't wrong, in their eyes so to them its not immoral. and wether its beneficial to your society to have murderers or not does not affect whether you think its moral to murder, stop acting like just because doing certain things is beneficial that it means those are some objectively morally good thing. Morals arent about whether your society benefits of your actions or not Morals are just about your personal feelings about things.
Moral objectivism is a stupid philosophy based on the misunderstanding what morals even are.
Like seriously, you go "Like motion, relativity does not imply non-existence" yeah i never said MORALS dont exist, i said Objective morality doesnt exist.
Which is a simple fact by people having different set of morals.
If objective morality would exist we would all think the same things are good and evil, but yeah do go on to basically act like anyone whose morals differ from yours is just broken. You do realize there's less impactful things than murder that are strongly varied on how people think about them such as piracy.
"If you can accept a goal or definition of morality – such as a set of ideal behaviors that create a mutual feeling of trust, compassion, happiness, and a functional society and individuals, then there is a definite morality, as whatever set of behaviors achieve this."
But thats not the definition of morality.
Morality is simply whether someone considers something right or wrong, there is no attachment to it that says "but only if it benefits society"
That's like me going:
If you can accept a goal or definition of Art – such as a product of human creativity but only if its audio based.
You know or how about, dont use someone elses morality to judge them?
You dont need to say something is morally bad to not encourage it, i mean literally we have laws against murder.
Morality being subjective doesnt stop us from stopping those who try to harm others.
It simply means that in their mind they are still "good guys"
It's actually hillarious how you keep acting like just because the villain doesnt see himself as Evil that somehow is supposed to mean that you cant judge them, you can, but you dont need morality to be objective for that.
Because literally my last post ended with me pointing out exactly that, you and the storm king merely have two different moral compasses. And that if you call someone evil you are just talking about whatever you consider evil.
And what do you do? talk about how actions can be beneficial or deterimental, yeah, because we were talking about whether there is things that objectively impprove or are deterimental to a society.
Eldritch Exponentiality
@*
`TL:DR:
So because you can't accept that good and evil is entirely based upon whoever looks at something it has to be objective.
Non.
The fact that others can disagree with you on what is right or wrong is evidence for there not being an objective right or wrong. Does that stop you from you saying anything is right or wrong? No, as stated before it simply means you are judging whoever by your morality.
I never said you should judge everyone by their own morality. I dont care wether you thought theft is bad or not, if you steal you'll be punished by the law.
Murder isn't wrong, in their eyes so to them its not immoral. and wether its beneficial to your society to have murderers or not does not affect whether you think its moral to murder, stop acting like just because doing certain things is beneficial that it means those are some objectively morally good thing. Morals arent about whether your society benefits of your actions or not Morals are just about your personal feelings about things.
Moral objectivism is a stupid philosophy based on the misunderstanding what morals even are.
Like seriously, you go "Like motion, relativity does not imply non-existence" yeah i never said MORALS dont exist, i said Objective morality doesnt exist.
Which is a simple fact by people having different set of morals.
If objective morality would exist we would all think the same things are good and evil, but yeah do go on to basically act like anyone whose morals differ from yours is just broken. You do realize there's less impactful things than murder that are strongly varied on how people think about them such as piracy.
"If you can accept a goal or definition of morality – such as a set of ideal behaviors that create a mutual feeling of trust, compassion, happiness, and a functional society and individuals, then there is a definite morality, as whatever set of behaviors achieve this."
But thats not the definition of morality.
Morality is simply whether someone considers something right or wrong, there is no attachment to it that says "but only if it benefits society"
That's like me going:
If you can accept a goal or definition of Art – such as a product of human creativity but only if its audio based.
You know or how about, dont use someone elses morality to judge them?
You dont need to say something is morally bad to not encourage it, i mean literally we have laws against murder.
Morality being subjective doesnt stop us from stopping those who try to harm others.
It simply means that in their mind they are still "good guys"
It's actually hillarious how you keep acting like just because the villain doesnt see himself as Evil that somehow is supposed to mean that you cant judge them, you can, but you dont need morality to be objective for that.
Because literally my last post ended with me pointing out exactly that, you and the storm king merely have two different moral compasses. And that if you call someone evil you are just talking about whatever you consider evil.
And what do you do? talk about how actions can be beneficial or deterimental, yeah, because we were talking about whether there is things that objectively imp