Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 461348661666775050
Except that slaughter is bad because slaughtering the poor family would be bad for the poor family
What if I deem it better to take your things so I can "help" others?
Therefore its not right
Its only right if it would also be better to the same to you in that situation which it isnt
But what if that slaughter was done for the greater good?
And what gives this "Golden rule" you propose any more legitimacy than communism, survival of the fittest, or any other system?
It cant be the greater good because no person would advocate their own slaughter
Who are you to decide good?
When you divide into groups it becomes immoral
Is what is good for one man the same for all men?
We know this through intelligence.
If you try and slaughter the rich they use the riches to protect and enslave the poor trying to rise up
Where does intelligence come from? What determines more intelligent from less intelligent?
And take others down for your own benefit
Intelligence comes from examining life and learning the way to resolve situations with the least conflict
What if something can't be resolved?
And again, why is your system any more legitimate than another?
It can always be resolved
What makes your system better than mine?
Better? Define better.
Im speaking to rule from experience where as you are simply making it supernatural authoritarianism
Where did these concepts come from?
So where were these ideas before you were born?
The concepts stem from intelligence
No, because stupid people still know right from wrong
Which still stems from intelligence
Right and wrong are absolute concepts. Though not everything is necessarily right or wrong, what is right is right.
Of weighing consequence vs gain
It's an absolute concept. You can't be a little pregnant
Morality isnt absolutely though
And for you to say, it's righteous to "do unto others..." then where does that come from? Where did the idea first originate?
Isn't it? So are you saying there is an instance in which murder, rape, theft, etc are okay?
It came from the clever philosophers who wrote the bible
Where did those philosophers get the idea?
There is a difference between mala in se and mala prohibita
And what makes malum in se?
For instance is raping a child the same as being called a rapist for not reading a girls mind that she isnt comfortable
A tax collector, a fisherman, and a doctor who followed some new age philosopher?
Its the difference between things that are cleary wrong from things like speeding tickets
Also it all dates back to Socrates. Hardly new age