When you realize there is no faggotty Moral Relativism and accept the fact that the world really is just ruled by evil Satanic pedophiles life starts to make a lot more sense.
So sick of that phrase. Although it's funny most of the people blathering on about it seem to have no idea what it even means. I'd love for people to ask what it means, when it comes up in debates.
Moral relativism is absolutely real. This is because, to quote one of my favorite authors, if you grind down reality to the finest powder and filter it through the finest sieve, you will find not one molecule of justice and not one atom of mercy. These things aren't real, in the tangible sense. We made them up, and we're the only beings in this solar system that engage with them. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and horrific ways to die are the norm, not the exception.
We simply do not, and cannot, have a real, tangible, objective measure of "moral" or "immoral". Every single attempt to identify one always boils down to either emotional appeals with a dash of "I'll know it when I see it" in the secular spheres or "my holy book says so" proscriptions in the religious spheres.
That being said, just because something isn't tangible and real doesn't mean we don't engage with it. Math isn't real either; it's a way to identify patterns in nature using an entirely artificial method of symbology, and make predictions using that symbology.
Ergo, moral concerns and judgements still will, and more or less must, happen, given mankind's unique ability of all animals to engage with metaphysical concepts and thinking. Note I use "metaphysical" to mean "beyond physical", such as math or future planning, and not to mean "supernatural" or "theological" or such.
With terms defined, let's hop back to moral relativism. Moral relativism is the understanding that, given there is no objective morality, we can't expect every person to make the same moral judgements for a given scenario. We must instead understand that other people make their judgements through their own understanding of morality, the same as we (in the sense of you or I) do, and while geographically and culturally similar groups often have similar moral mores, those separated by time, distance, or significant cultural institutions will generally not.
We must, keeping these things in mind, now understand that, from the perspective of the average sandperson goatfucker, they are not only not doing anything wrong, they are quite often doing what is good and moral. Their culture and morals allow, and in some ways require, them to act the way they do. They are not knowingly acting in a way we would define as evil; they act with the full support of both their conscience and their institutions.
That is, in it's entirety, the concept of moral relativism.
Please note that this DOES NOT MEAN you cannot make moral judgements. You absolutely can, and should; the others certainly will. You must simply understand that others are not acting AGAINST YOUR morality, but rather IN FAVOR of THEIR morality.
You can recognize that morality is relative and still absolutely desire to wipe certain moralities (as well as their underlying institutions and cultures) off the face of the globe because what they consider good, right, and proper, you consider bad, evil, and immoral.
Math is in fact tangible, not sure what you’re trying to say there unless you’re talking theoretical mathematics and even then it’s not a great argument.
Moral relativism is a redundant concept and it really only works in the head of atheists and people who believe truth is subjective. If truth is objective, however, moral relativism is a lazy approach to saying not everyone is willing to accept truth and in accordance to that, we should accept their lies.
Also your favorite author is retarded, I could inject you with numerous drugs to make you feel mercy. dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphins are what constitute our ability to be calm and feel affection or mercy for others. Our amygdala and prefrontal cortex flare up when we sense unfairness, this is true of crimes committed against you or ones you see of others. What causes ability to feel mercy and justice are, in fact, tangible.
You're missing the point. The author is saying nature is amoral because morality is a human concept. Has nothing to do with chemicals or whatever the fuck you're interpreting it as.
Thank you for being that guy so I didn't have to. The fact that we understand the inherent relativism of morality is precisely why we have to gatekeep our culture so strongly, to enforce our morality above others.
When you realize there is no faggotty Moral Relativism and accept the fact that the world really is just ruled by evil Satanic pedophiles life starts to make a lot more sense.
So sick of that phrase. Although it's funny most of the people blathering on about it seem to have no idea what it even means. I'd love for people to ask what it means, when it comes up in debates.
Sure, I'll be that guy.
Moral relativism is absolutely real. This is because, to quote one of my favorite authors, if you grind down reality to the finest powder and filter it through the finest sieve, you will find not one molecule of justice and not one atom of mercy. These things aren't real, in the tangible sense. We made them up, and we're the only beings in this solar system that engage with them. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and horrific ways to die are the norm, not the exception.
We simply do not, and cannot, have a real, tangible, objective measure of "moral" or "immoral". Every single attempt to identify one always boils down to either emotional appeals with a dash of "I'll know it when I see it" in the secular spheres or "my holy book says so" proscriptions in the religious spheres.
That being said, just because something isn't tangible and real doesn't mean we don't engage with it. Math isn't real either; it's a way to identify patterns in nature using an entirely artificial method of symbology, and make predictions using that symbology.
Ergo, moral concerns and judgements still will, and more or less must, happen, given mankind's unique ability of all animals to engage with metaphysical concepts and thinking. Note I use "metaphysical" to mean "beyond physical", such as math or future planning, and not to mean "supernatural" or "theological" or such.
With terms defined, let's hop back to moral relativism. Moral relativism is the understanding that, given there is no objective morality, we can't expect every person to make the same moral judgements for a given scenario. We must instead understand that other people make their judgements through their own understanding of morality, the same as we (in the sense of you or I) do, and while geographically and culturally similar groups often have similar moral mores, those separated by time, distance, or significant cultural institutions will generally not.
We must, keeping these things in mind, now understand that, from the perspective of the average sandperson goatfucker, they are not only not doing anything wrong, they are quite often doing what is good and moral. Their culture and morals allow, and in some ways require, them to act the way they do. They are not knowingly acting in a way we would define as evil; they act with the full support of both their conscience and their institutions.
That is, in it's entirety, the concept of moral relativism.
Please note that this DOES NOT MEAN you cannot make moral judgements. You absolutely can, and should; the others certainly will. You must simply understand that others are not acting AGAINST YOUR morality, but rather IN FAVOR of THEIR morality.
You can recognize that morality is relative and still absolutely desire to wipe certain moralities (as well as their underlying institutions and cultures) off the face of the globe because what they consider good, right, and proper, you consider bad, evil, and immoral.
Math is in fact tangible, not sure what you’re trying to say there unless you’re talking theoretical mathematics and even then it’s not a great argument.
Moral relativism is a redundant concept and it really only works in the head of atheists and people who believe truth is subjective. If truth is objective, however, moral relativism is a lazy approach to saying not everyone is willing to accept truth and in accordance to that, we should accept their lies.
Also your favorite author is retarded, I could inject you with numerous drugs to make you feel mercy. dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphins are what constitute our ability to be calm and feel affection or mercy for others. Our amygdala and prefrontal cortex flare up when we sense unfairness, this is true of crimes committed against you or ones you see of others. What causes ability to feel mercy and justice are, in fact, tangible.
You're missing the point. The author is saying nature is amoral because morality is a human concept. Has nothing to do with chemicals or whatever the fuck you're interpreting it as.
Thank you for being that guy so I didn't have to. The fact that we understand the inherent relativism of morality is precisely why we have to gatekeep our culture so strongly, to enforce our morality above others.