Join 75,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!
Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.
what does this mean kobe bryant
well i don't need people that agree with me here bud
is there any other context besides the argument of morality kobe bryant
why kobe bryant tell me
i understand
are you on drugs nigger
me, i dont like murder
why?
ah diskhat your so sinister
I will track you down you crippled f****t
i feel like we're headed the wrong direction, reminds me too much of jeezy
today I dreamt he came back ngl
i thought india was the most religious, most philosophically rich country in the world how dare you fail your ancestors
Why the fuck are you all
are you retarded?
well i think if you ask for hinduisms view in it, you would say murder is bad because it feeds negative emotions
these are reasons within a moral framework for why murder is wrong. but you need to show why those things(rights, future, moral worth) are intrinsically more than just deeply held human values that exists in many peoples minds. i can fully agree that: murder causes immense harm, destroys future, and virtually everyone condemns it, and that societies that permit it tend to do worse. but none of that says its some fact independent of human minds.
stand ready for my arrival worm
Would the percievable existence of morality in nature be a fair refutal?
nature doesn't exist its just a way of implementing the thought of mind which is authentically wrong by itself
Chatgpt would be great rn
im unauthentic
remember how you dickslapped RAD and that hungarian guy inanimate pragmatist in arguments? i thought you were stronger
Like I said it's not a debate to be won its more like a discussion because I don't believe there's an actual way to come to a conclusion unlike those topics.
the fact that moral truths are not measurabel in the same way as physical facts does not necessarily mean they are unreal. after all, many things we regard as objective such as logci mathematic or rational consistency are not physical objects either a moral realist could argue that "murder is wrong" is not merely a preference but a truth discoverable through reason because the unjustified destruction of conscious beings directly contradicts the conditions required for human flourishing and moral agency while moral disagreement certainly exists disagreement alone does not disprove objectivitypeople disagree about science history, and mathematics as well yet few would conclude that there are no objective facts in those domains if anything the nearuniversal condemnation of murder across cultures may suggest that human beings are recognizing a genuine moral reality rather than simply expressing arbitrary preferences
bossy
Sure, but wouldn't you agree that the more a species evolves the more intelligent and better suited to survival they become? Wouldn't this making their displays of morality more legitimate?
that's basically my point lmao if morality appears in other social species that seems more consistent with it being an evulutionary adaptation than an objective feature of reality
mathematical and logical truths are necessarily true. 2+2 equals 4 in any possible world and denying it makes a contradiction. "murder is wrong" isn't like that. you can coherently imagine a universe where conscious beings exist and murder carries no wrongness. it could just be a fact about what happens like a rock falling. there is no contradiction in a universe with suffering but no wrongness.the fact that moral truths are not measurabel in the same way as physical facts does not necessarily mean they are unreal. after all, many things we regard as objective such as logci mathematic or rational consistency are not physical objects either a moral realist could argue that "murder is wrong" is not merely a preference but a truth discoverable through reason because the unjustified destruction of conscious beings directly contradicts the conditions required for human flourishing and moral agency while moral disagreement certainly exists disagreement alone does not disprove objectivitypeople disagree about science history, and mathematics as well yet few would conclude that there are no objective facts in those domains if anything the nearuniversal condemnation of murder across cultures may suggest that human beings are recognizing a genuine moral reality rather than simply expressing arbitrary preferences
hope this helps
what do you mean legitimate? evolution just makes organisms better suited for their environments.
the ability to imagine a world without moral facts doesn't prove moral facts don't exist people can imagine worlds where logic or causality work differently too and flourishing isn't just an arbitrary preference
Who's opinion would you value more about what to do with your education, a genius or a guy with down syndrome? Intelligent beings all showing similair values shows that likely those values are correct. While yes you could also argue that it just means the values are beneficial, there's no way to prove that necessarily. Humans do not act morally for the most part, we are still incredibly self destructive, but we remain aware of moral systems nevertheless.
but the analogy with logic still stands. logical contradictions are impossible by definition. a world where suffering exists and yet nothing is objectively wrong isn't contradictory. moral facts aren't necessary truths like 2+2=4 or the speed of light.
peoples views r based on other’s subjective morality so they csn fit in
You might aswell debate truth and not morality pmo pmo
This is the problem btw, you're "debating" people on morality when you fundamentally disagree on the definition of truth and refuse to budge
