How dare you?

Religion is a tool.

As any other.

Though I do believe in a higher power.

IQ is irrelevant if you're ignorant.

Ugh, my eye is twitching.

Islam is both a political and religious belief.

A dangerous and expansionist ideology.

Apparently it supports "rational thought", bit there is little else that is more irrational than fanaticism.

And why would I do that?

Is it?

I see.

134 by the by. Last I took a test.

I guess it was just online, but why would an algorithm give me any less results than the psychologist that put the test together. It's all just smoke and mirrors meant to give somebody a leg up over their peers. Really, it means nothing of you squander it.

Is it?

It's really a pointless thing to do, if you ask a fish to fly and then judge his ability on that then you've lost a valuable swimmer.

I think it might help decide who might be able to solve your logic puzzle.

It's figurative.

Just go back to monarchism of you want Facism

It's about the same thing, except without commoners.

Feudalism is the best.

Most interesting dynamic.

Feudalism is a system where you need to keep the support of the people actively.

Because if an overlord fucked over his Underlords the Underlords would not heed the call to Arms.

The Ottomans allowed themselves to break up, and now they're just Arabs that hate each other

I think you mean Dignity.

Argh! My eye won't stop twitching.

I didn't drink any today

And I got a good 7 hours.

Which is in the optimal range.

Oh that was odd.

Utopia is impossible in our current world.

We're too petty.

Slavery isn't a utopia.

A Utopia has a high desirability, and near ideal conditions for everyone in it.

I'd like most people to be honourable.

Enclave is an ignorant fool that would have any who differ in opinion shut down, and likely killed. A true testament to foolhardiness.

A wretched, and willfully stupid thing.

Closed borders for those who wish to circumvent the system and take advantage.

Yes.

That's what I see.

@Swiss Cheese

Morality is a construct and as such it is objective in the eyes of the one who created the moral system. The definition of morality would support this notion.

There are even extents to which morality extends i.e.: how right, or wrong something is.

E.g. Killing is wrong, but under circumstance it is accepted.

I didn't say murder.

A life is a life regardless of what is chosen to do with it. I'm not saying that killing can not be justified.

But the fact that you just said "every moral system" contradicts your statement that morality is objective.

As if there was an objective morality, there would be no systems.

There would just be morality.

Right and wrong.

Exactly.

The fact that you have to convince people of an objective morality shows there is no objective.

That it is fluid and dynamic.

God's existence is not subjective.

It is objective, as Good exists, or does not exist.

And the objective reality is that there is no way to know for certain.

That is what faith is.

Though

You could say that all systems is morality are objective.

No.

It means that a person's judgment based on facts can not be swayed by opinion, or feeling.

So if there were facts to support both arguments, both could be objective. By the definition of the word.

Then it is a matter of who is more right.

I wouldn't call Faith an opinion.

A search for what God is, is what sent us down the path of discovery.

A hunger for knowledge of why it is that God did what he did.

Which lead to philosophy, which lead to modern science.

Now we argue over what is right, or wrong, and gauge how right something is compared to another.

I don't think there is anything in modern morality that is "outside the mind".

Perhaps if I saw somebody struck by lightning out of a blue sky for doing something immoral, then there would be proof of an objective morality.

An agreed upon set of ethics and decisions on what is more right won't sway me. I think there is justification for morality, but no true morality that presides above the rest.

It's like, what is the difference between righteous anger, and indignation to you?

When does killing become murder?

When does indulgence become degenerate?

Who decides what is Just when it comes to killing?

But that's not how the Courts work.

Should we do away with the courts and have a paper run them instead?

Who would write this Mystical document that would enforce right and wrong and not be subjected to any interpretation?

How would that be enforced?

What would enforce it?

I'm asking how is there a definite morality.

Yes, I was.

If there is an objective morality, what is it?

Holy, sweet Lord, give me strength.

I asked those questions because you said it should not be a "who" that decides what is Just

Which implies it should be a what.

Then, pray thee tell, do you suggest be proof of this objective morality?

No, it is a question that directly relates to your *opinion* that there is an objective morality.

That there is one morality that presides all others.

And takes precedence.

I'm asking what it is, and how is it free from interpretation?

Morality is not logical as there is no system to validate what is moral, and immoral.

So, morality is a human concept, and as such you have argued against yourself in saying that humanity can never reach an objective morality, meaning it does not exist.

Hmmm, "We cannot achieve perfect objectivity in our moral systems."

Because "humans are not perfectly logical creatures."

There is no objective morality.

There are no facts of it.

Nothing that proves it is.

There is only your opinion.