>"You know man, morality is relative. What is evil to you, is good for others. Morality cannot be defined by good and evi-
>Pic related
Kill all Moral Relativists
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
>good and evil
no such thing
>No such thing
You need to go back
>i can't argue against you, therefore reddit
Redditors aren't moral relativists their morality is just ridiculously libtarded (e.g. you're evil if you're against baby murder)
So you don't think it's wrong when someone bigger and stronger than you beats you with a plank of wood for fun and then rapes your mother while his bang-banger friends watch and hoot with joy?
no, it just means I would prefer for this not to happen. All that exists is preference and desire. What I like is “good” and what I don’t like is “bad”
Yeah, if you're a woman. If you can use reason, then no.
how do you make sense of morality without subjective preference
why should someone do "good", if they prefer not to?
outside of preferences there is no such thing as good. If all experiences were equally preferable to me then it wouldn’t matter what happened to me. You could put me in jail, rape me, set me on fire, even kill me, it wouldn’t make a difference. You couldn’t even use “reason” to convince me that I should be moral. Why shouldn’t I murder and rape children? I don’t care if I go to jail, I don’t care if people torture me. It’s only with the existence of basic biological instincts and preferences that I can realize that committing such crimes is bad for myself. I can kill animals, torture them even, but the idea of doing the same to humans just feels wrong. I suffer just by doing it. It is unpreferable to me.
Good is preference and nothing more. The universe is completely indifferent, there is no such thing as objective good.
>Why shouldn’t I murder and rape children
behold the white "people" mindset, think back to this whenever you feel bad about the light haired light eyed pale peoples of the world cucking themselves out of existence
>darkie takes a quote out of context and pretends to be right
what a surprise
>you're wrong because I hate shitskins
Cope
0 self-awareness
If me and my peers, prefer not have children be raped and murdered
We have no problem
retard
>What I like is “good” and what I don’t like is “bad”
So you don't think anyone should have a responsibility to stop criminals for the good of the community? Wow, you have no freaking clue how the world works.
Get your head out of your butt and look around. There are bad people who are selfish and want to do bad things to other people for no reason other than short-term gain. They are often powerful and have dozens of powerful friends with weapons and similar outlooks in life. If they had their way we would all be their bitch-slaves and give them all our money and women. We call them "gangs" or south of the border "cartels". Do you not believe you should have the freedom to not be harassed by people like this? Well, I believe in freedom ,which means being free to live in peace without being harassed by bad men who want to rob me and violate my female family members. I do not believe they should be free to do those things if they are able to overpower me. This is the very most basic concept of good and evil, the idea of freedom v s oppression. If you can't grasp that then I think you;re too far gone.
>If they had their way we would all be their bitch-slaves and give them all our money and women.
yeah, that’s not preferable, which is precisely why I want this to be prevented, not only by taking action myself, but by holding others accountable and believing in law and order.
Me having a preference for long term "good", is completely compatible with this
retard
I want to eat donuts, I also don't want to get fat
I have to conflicting desires
Me preference to not be a fat slob winning out, it's still a preference
Yes, but that's on a very small scale and not taking other people into account. Choosing things for your own benefit/detriment is one thing but it gets a lot more complicated when you involve other people. Here's one:
1. I want to have sex with a cow
2. The pig's owner, farmer John, does not want me to have sex with his cow
3. The pig does not want to have sex with me, it is frightened of people because it is smart enough to know it will be killed and turned into hamburgers soon
4. Farmer john will not sell me his cow because he doesn't want me to have sex with it.
So, in this scenario, I have two options. I can either fuck the cow, which tramples on the rights of Farmer John for his property to be respected, as well as the cow's right to not be subjected to my rape attempts. Or I could deny myself something I really want and die one day full of regret that I never indulged in my lust toward farmer John's cow. Clearly, for me, it is better to rape the cow, but Farmer John is a person too, and if you were in his position you would want your cow to stay un-raped. Sympathy with others is essential to functioning in society. You need to be able to imagine yourself in someone else's position in order to understand good from evil.
imagine if you had a magic button that caused other people to suffer but gives you a sensation better than 80 orgasms at once. Nobody could stop you from pushing it and nobody would ever punish your or even harbor bad feelings toward you for doing so. If you would still push it anyway, you are selfish and have chosen evil.
Do you eat animals?
Yes. I will add that they are property and can be bought, sold, and killed for meat because it is their owner's rights to do so. People are not and should not be property.
No, benefiting from others altruism is not inherently good or evil. You can call basic morality "cucked" if you want but let me know how "un-cucked" you feel when someone bigger and stronger than you robs you and rapes your loved ones and suffers no consequences. Like it or not, there is always someone stronger and more powerful than you and it is good and right to not abuse your power and respect those beneath you. Anon, you will be either debilitatingly sick or old and weak one day. Do you want to be brushed aside for being old and weak, or do you want to be cared for? Morality means caring for the weak. Don't like it? You will when you know death and decay.
>animals are property and can be used for our ends but not humans because reasons
waiting on those reasons
Why need a reason?
because otherwise your moral beliefs are built on nothing and you can’t even argue against vegans who say that causing suffering is always wrong. A vegan would tear you a new asshole in an ethical debate. You don’t even know your own moral principles
>Morality means caring for the weak
*slave morality
When you're a slave, slave morality looks pretty good
And I suppose slaves are the ultimate arbiters of morality?
And you're forced to follow them, nagger slave homosexual cuck. people like you deserve to get shot.
Not being able to defend your possessions and your loved ones sounds more like a you problem, not a moral problem.
You realize people can still prefer to care for the elderly and sick
Or prefer to NOT go on a rape rampage, even if they are big and strong
How is this hard?
>If you put yourself ahead of others to pursue your own interests, you are selfish and evil
>If you sacrifice yourself for other people's interests, you are altruistic and good. Also, those people you are helping aren't evil for benefitting from your sacrifice.
Sounds hypocritical. Cucked, even.
>Sympathy with others is essential to functioning in society.
So, my preference to act with sympathy is conflicting with my preference for cow sex
If my preference to act in accordance with my sympathetic nature wins out, that solves it.
This is still me doing things I prefer, rather than things I don't prefer.
(Alternatively, I may just not have the preference to fuck cows in the first place..)
You really are pretty retarded, if you need me to spell this out.
tyrone needs to get his kicks too. is it evil for tyrone to do as tyrone's nature entails?
Yes. Tyrone's victims have rights too. f they don;t want to be robbed or raped they shouldn't have to be. If that steps on Tyrone's nature, tough shit, Tyrone needs to find whatever part of his brain makes him do that and get a lobotomy or therapy or something to change his nature to something better. Or just cut off his hands and penis so he can't harm anyone while still retaining his nature. Or find some sad masochist that would enjoy his tyranny. Or find a creative outlet such as writing a hentai about his violent fantasies. There are plenty of options in life that don't involve oppressing others.
I don't really care too much about how others feel
I'm mostly concerned with my feelings
Why say "evil" instead of "bad" or rather "wrong"?
Evil is a specific thing, it is the act of being morally wrong for the sake and satisfaction of being morally wrong, it is unbound sadism.
I'm not stabbing you in the foot repeatedly because I need to do so for some higher purpose, at least here you could argue that my methods are wrong, I do it because I enjoy your screams of pain and your twisted expression.
You cannot argue with evil.
>Evil
I say this because there is no such thing as "Evil" to moral relativist. It's all abstract shit to them. Then if you give an example of evil they will pilpul like the fucking israelites they are that it is "not true moral relativism" while at the same time accusing you as wrong and demonic. It's fucking hilarious really.
the best thing to say is ALWAYS "are you saying pedophilia is only wrong because of our society, thats sick , im sorry"
Pedo shit is the easiest thing to point to that shows true evil and watch atheists squirm about it.
Why do christnaggers love dealing in absolutes? Like Europe wasn't filled with pedophilia for millennia while the christhomosexuals reigned supreme
oh oh how wrong you would be.
>completely ignores all the pedo priests in church today
I'm not Catholic
But killing people is evil?...
only relatively
But anon, in the culture of the humanoid frog killing people isn't bad, who are you to judge another culture right?
I don't follow your arguments UP why would good and evil not exist if morality is not re!ative. There are no absolutely good or evil acts - a man sacrificing his life for his friends might also be commuting evil by teaching them they can't save themselves.
I just think paedophilia is always evil
Seethe about atheists thread #googolplex
Ok anon what IS objectively good and evil and how can you prove it?
Killing for pleasure is evil.
how do you know?
I know both the concepts of killing and pleasure, and through the dialectic of both together I can reason a conclusion with my brain, that killing for pleasure is bad.
>muh feelings
lmao
What?
God is good, therefore what is with God is good, and what is in conflict with God is evil
Simple as
>morality is whatever god subjectively decides is moral
so moral relativity then lol
enjoy subjectively burning in hell for eternity
Enjoying wasting your only life on kike myths that only spics and naggers are stupid enough to believe.
Then what is morality to you?
>God is good
What does that even mean?
Ok now prove god is real
Define good
Define right
Define moral
Define should
Define ought
Define duty
Congrats OP, you are now a moral relativist too. Maybe you should shoot yourself next.
>What is evil to you, is good for others.
This is functionally true, otherwise morality would be uniform and unbreakable across all cultures. Moral relativity doesnt mean you have to like other cultures, but they do exist and do have different modes of morality.
>enjoy subjectively burning in hell for eternity
Morality is group thinking.
How does preferring not be killed imply an admission that objective morality exists?
Morality is relative. The morals of today are not the same as the morals of the past.
nah man
if society says shitting is bad cause it smell are you going to stop pooping?
fuck it
Humans are social creatures and they conform to the standard more often than they do the opposite.
yeah but there are numerous of cultures, no need to accept whatever you were given
Moral relativism seems like a useful tool for understanding other cultures, and humans as a whole.
It seems that laymen have corrupted it into some kind of bizarre hypocritical nihilistic world view.
>Corrupted
Moral Relativism is inherently reddit. It is a result of the post modern degeneracy propagated by the likes of Foucault, Sartre, and Beauvoir (may they burn in the hottest fires of hell) and making it a center idea of their philosophies.
Why should we not give the moral relativists and kill every single last one of them? After all, it's relative whether their deaths are good or bad right? Fuck those cowards
or you could just use better arguments for objective morality. The fact that you want to resort to violence shows you don’t have faith in this option. Your arguments are circular and empty.
>you should be moral because…it’s just the right thing to do ok?!
>what is morality?? The good!
>what is good? God is good!
>what does it mean for God to be good?? His ways are mysterious!! You’re a moral relativism so I can just kill you right now haha I don’t need to argue
Cope Retard. All you relativist homosexuals will be the first one to fold when a gun is pointed in your head while saying "You don't have to do this, pwease your a good man deep inside". Literal hypocrisy. Your life value is relative then you fucking retard.
no I would say “why do you want to risk jail because of me? You’re gonna feel guilty about this for the rest of your life regardless.” I just have to appeal to your interests. Since you care so much about morality I might even tell you that this is an immoral act, and being immoral is..le bad! according to you. It’s really simple anon
>Guilty
How about no retard? Why are you assuming that he will be guilty? It's all relative to people. If the Aztecs does not feel guilty when shanking and sacrificing hearts to their heathen gods, why should the criminal pointing their gun on you should?
>Inb4 "nooooo that does not exist, all humans feel guilty when they killerino nooooooo"
It's all relative bro!
So what? I don’t want to be killed. That doesn’t mean objective morality exists. But it’s still the case that killing me might be bad for you, if you get punished. Surely you can imagine a world without a magical transcendent objective morality floating around somewhere in the universe? A world where evolution simply created certain social behaviors that helped the species thrive. All that exists is preference, wanting to get whatever your genes tell you to do, even if that includes killing yourself for the sake of the genes in someone else. This is so much simpler than whatever the fuck you’re trying to say.
>Might be bad for you
It's relative you fucking retard. And "bad" does not exist according to you.
>Killing yourself for the sake of genes
>Casually forgetting America composed of mutts not related to each other dying for another mutts.
>Forgot Christians who were persecuted for their faiths and belief.
Your genetic imperative is a fucking fallacy along with your moral relativistic bullshit in the first place when put to practice as what was seen in history. No wonder reddit likes these ideas
>And "bad" does not exist according to you.
I already explained this. What I don’t like = bad. What you don’t like = bad (for you).
>Casually forgetting America composed of mutts not related to each other dying for another mutts.
humans share a lot of DNA, if you didn’t know.
>Forgot Christians who were persecuted for their faiths and belief.
only because they believed in immortality afterwards (which is the exact thing that our genes crave).
You’re a lost cause. I’m only continuing this discussion to show others how retarded you and your arguments are.
If I prefer not to be killed. What is wrong with expressing this preference?
I grant that some people may not care, that's not incompatible with my position.
Where's the hypocrisy?
Say I am some kind of moral non-realist.
That I think different people can find different things to be moral or immoral.
Do you think that somehow entails that I should act like every person's "morality" is equally important?
It's so fucking stupid. That does not follow.
There is no contradiction in me being mainly concerned about what I think is moral, what I would prefer for people to do or not do. This is not hypocrisy by any stretch of the word.
What would be hypocritical is if, I thought people should act a certain way, but I didn't do so myself. Right?
>Do you think that somehow entails that I should act like every person's "morality" is equally important?
no, it just means you can’t claim that other people are objectively immoral. You can, however, say that you don’t like their behavior, or that their behavior is bad for themselves, or for some group as a whole. So if you want to convince someone not to do something immoral, you should simply appeal to their interests, or assert your own will over theirs. Objective morality is just a lie used to make people weak and compliant. The elites don’t follow the same rules. Ironically, telling other people to be selfless is selfish.
>What would be hypocritical is if, I thought people should act a certain way, but I didn't do so myself.
there is no such thing as hypocrisy unless you claim to have a specific moral belief (that applies to you) yet your actions don’t align with that belief. If you say that someone else should do x, this just means that doing x would fulfill some goal of theirs. If I were playing a chess game with you, and I said “you should make this move” then this obviously means that this move would be good for you. Otherwise I am just lying, and really saying “I want you to make this move.”