Message from @Ehzek

Discord ID: 462851280197648384


2018-07-01 05:20:31 UTC  

Subjective to the individual person

2018-07-01 05:20:38 UTC  

Then how is it good?

2018-07-01 05:21:33 UTC  

Good is subjective

2018-07-01 05:21:50 UTC  

No absolute for good, or for anything, because God doesn't exist

2018-07-01 05:21:58 UTC  

Ive said that

2018-07-01 05:22:18 UTC  

If you do something against someone to benefit yourself, if you succeed, it's good. If you fail, it's bad.

2018-07-01 05:22:19 UTC  

Its a spectrum a graph there is always worse or better

2018-07-01 05:22:44 UTC  

Only with God can an act always be bad even if you don't get caught. Even if the entire world never knows about it.

2018-07-01 05:22:47 UTC  

If you succeed and they kill you its bad

2018-07-01 05:22:54 UTC  

That's not success

2018-07-01 05:23:08 UTC  

Go to jail, get killed, etc is all failure

2018-07-01 05:23:12 UTC  

Then you are speaking in absolutes

2018-07-01 05:23:21 UTC  

As it may not happen immediately

2018-07-01 05:23:57 UTC  

It is because it throws your future into increased uncertainty that it is bad

2018-07-01 05:24:37 UTC  

This is in addition to the harm you also caused the person

2018-07-01 05:24:45 UTC  

And if that uncertainty is unfounded, it's not bad

2018-07-01 05:24:58 UTC  

And that in many situations the same act on your self is bad

2018-07-01 05:24:59 UTC  

Harm to another person doesn't matter any more than smashing a bug

2018-07-01 05:25:16 UTC  

It is

2018-07-01 05:25:32 UTC  

Because it throws your future into more uncertainty

2018-07-01 05:25:44 UTC  

And increases your risk of harm

2018-07-01 05:25:46 UTC  

How is that anything to do with morals, though?

2018-07-01 05:26:52 UTC  

You're confusing risk with moral

2018-07-01 05:27:04 UTC  

Because my morals dont need god to work like those that are arbitrarily forcing their moral definition on me

2018-07-01 05:27:32 UTC  

Like what Ragnarok inferred, risk isn't morals

2018-07-01 05:27:42 UTC  

Turn it around, and use the Catholic Crusaders as an example, a misunderstood group of people that are often invoked here.

2018-07-01 05:27:57 UTC  

They had no reward. Some battles had a 90% casualty rate

2018-07-01 05:28:44 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/451601956755210241/462852029904060428/MoralCompass2.gif

2018-07-01 05:28:46 UTC  

To crusade you had to buy your own stuff. In modern terms, imagine some guy from France having to buy his own tank and get himself to the middle east to fight ISIS

2018-07-01 05:29:03 UTC  

By your logic, Ehzek, if someone committed mass murder, but through it became *successful*, does that mean they're in the right? That they're "morally" fine?

2018-07-01 05:29:06 UTC  

There was no salary

2018-07-01 05:29:14 UTC  

No benefits

2018-07-01 05:29:25 UTC  

Nothing but a realistic chance of death

2018-07-01 05:29:31 UTC  

Reference the graph

2018-07-01 05:29:40 UTC  

Were they wrong to do so?

2018-07-01 05:29:51 UTC  

It was good for society

2018-07-01 05:30:14 UTC  

It isnt good to force it but its a choice that can be made that is moral

2018-07-01 05:30:30 UTC  

How was it good?

2018-07-01 05:30:40 UTC  

Good for their society

2018-07-01 05:30:46 UTC  

It's essentially a complicated way of committing suicide

2018-07-01 05:31:26 UTC  

To further the good of the society by your own will