I hear noam chomsky established that there is objective morality

Albert Fish killed and ate over 30 children and didn't understand why people had a beef with it... did he just not understand morality? Or was his moral standard different?

@NotQuiteHuman say we are living inside a multiverse with infinate number of possible outcomes and realities

that would make things a bit more tricky. objective may not be universal

in this case

Here's my opinion. Morality changes according to context.

I don't even know how objective or subjective morality can be proven, in any way.. anyone acting "immorally" might have a different moral standard, or they may not understand the objectively true immorality of their actions. Is there even any chance of an consensus?

For example, Killing itself is neither moral or immoral

It is moral or immoral depending on the context

another way of thinking

killing oneself brings a wave of hurt into the universe

Killing an innocent person- immoral.
Killing a rapist in self defense - moral

via connections you made

Even killing a rapist they have a mom

And?

I said *self defense*

so it can be justified but still bringing immoral injustice

@Deleted User I think I see where you're going. Like, putting a dog out it's misery if it's twitching in gmthe road after being hit, is moral. Compared to hitting it with a baseball bat for fun.

by pain and suffering of innocent family

like the butterful effect

I said Self defense, Grayman. What you are saying can be applied to the concept of revenge

or justice

The action itself isn't immoral nor moral; rather the intent of the perpertrator

Well, not exactly

I said context, not intent

Or the consequence?

Think about this

If there's a white supremacist walking down the road

he has a shotgun

He sees a black man raping a child in an alley

and shoots the black man

Now, a black man being shot by a white supremacist, is immoral

but, a rapist being killed to defend his victim, is moral

So intent then? Did he shoot him because he as black? Or to defend the rape victim?

Exactly, considerng intent pollutes the context

The context should matter, on it's own

and that's it

Yeah, I see what you're saying

But if people disagree that randomly killing blacks with no reason is immoral, how do you square that with objective morality?

You and I might agree that unprovoked murder is immoral...

Someone else might disagree

Again, context. I think I side with objective morality more

Let's dial it back a notch

A racist man says Nigger on a stream

He says it because he's reading huckleberry Finn

holy fuck

u guys gotta watch that person son vid

Now, if you consider intent, you'd have to impose what *you* think, on that man

Your nuance is showing 🙈

"AI when it runs it doesn't have rules"

matt "ugh.. the operating system has rules"

lmfao

But if you merely consider *context*, the man did nothing wrong

Philosophers can be annoyingly collectivist at times

Yeah but shiv, you're missing a crucial point..

@NotQuiteHuman regarding your request for resources on the race and crime debate, the "cheet sheet" is to go to the wikipedia page, skim the page for what you are looking for, find out what their references are, look up the references they cite, and quote those for your report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

I mentioned Albert Fish earlier. He killed and ate over 30 children. Didn't see why people thought that was wrong.

You and I can both agree that's not moral.
He couldn't.

If morality is objective: he didn't understand the immorality of his actions.
If morality is subjective: he was acting under a different moral framework.

How can we ever know? How can objective morality ever be proven?

Unless we ignore such characters for the rare outliers they are.. which I suppose would be fair

This isn't an outlier.

Did Albert kill these children in self defense? Or for a similar reason?

Cause they tasted nice, I guess...

My point is that he never understood why it was considered taboo

Since he didn't, we can agree that what he did, was immoral

We can agree that. He never understood that argument

Immoral, because he had no actual reason to kill the children, other than his own twisted fascination

Yeah, but regardless, he never understood why it was considered immoral.

He's a low functioning psychopath, it seems

Have you considered he could have some sort of moral autism ?

He never understood, because to him, other people don't matter

All that matters, is himself

I have considered that zutt, hence my question before; it was a serious question:

Did he just not understand morality?

Or was his moral framework just different?

@zutt Not moral autism, he seems to have a lack of any sort of empathy

Well that would imply he had a moral sense and didnt care

He didn't understand morality. I can say this, because in a way, morality is heavily dependent on the concept of Empathy

From your sentence

Yeah I agree with you tbh shiv.

To understand how you can be hurt, is to understand how to hurt others. Then just don't do that, because empathy.

That's the basis for the objective morality argument I guess. .

But then, some people think differently. "Its a dog eat dog world".

Like, if I can fuck you over and make my life easier, I should be able to do so.

And you should be able to do the same to me. But I'll make it as hard as possible for you to do so out of self protection/self interest.

Not how I think, but genuinely how some people perceive the world. And if some people perceive the world that way, how can morality be objective across the board.

@Rils @Deleted User hey so I'm going to try and make the "why you do not see 'whites only' signs in the windows of American businesses anymore" short. So the people who lived in the 13 colonies that declared independence from King George III didn't want to live under a tyrant who could just tell them what to do, so they purposely made the governments ability to make laws hard.

So having a "whites only" sign in your business was legal, until the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" prohibited discrimination in "public accommodations" based on: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Having a "whites only" sign was mandated by law under Segregation laws.

It gets a lot harder to sort out between Emancipation and Segregation how much discrimination there was

In that era, many businesses pushed back saying the federal government had no power to tell them how to run their businesses that were local, raised the chickens out back, customers were only from that town, etc.

But if we're talking about the Jim Crow era, segregation wasn't just legal, it was mandated.

Many businesses pushed back against the state laws saying they had to segregate too.

You don't correct government overreach with more government overreach.

And remember the part about "didn't want to live under a tyrant", the federal government had to find a way to prohibit discrimination, but do it in a way that I'm sure the local businesses considered tyranical

They fought tyranny with more tyranny, and it's had major consequences

So they went back to the constitution, and found a section called "the commerce clause" that regulated interstate business, and interpreted that to mean that discrimination in public accommodations was related to the trade between the sates

And of course, it was fought then, lots of people tried to make lots of arguments against it. But that's why you don't see those signs in the windows of American businesses today

The courts created a bad precedent for more tyranny.

@Rils yes they did

The courts had also previously found Separate but Equal to be constitutional

I don't like to rely on the courts for legislation

It's not a great system

It's just better than all the others

Judging by the reaction today to the power of SCOTUS, I'm not quite sure

Amend the Constitution if you want to clarify the powers of the Fed, don't have SCOTUS make up new definitions that aren't there.

I once heard my father (this was like 20 years ago) wonder aloud what would happen if the President directly acted against a ruling from SCOTUS. I want to say it's a constitutional question that's not come up in 200+ years

What would happen is impeachment.