Yes, I would say that's so, by definition.

if you grew up in that system, you would believe it appropriate. Just as someone who grew up in a western value system would view it an inappropriate

now, you might be able to set them as not equal to each-other if you define a set of near objectable metrics for what equals "better". For example the amount of human suffering.

Basing a system of morality on human suffering seems pretty deeply flawed.

Why should any two systems agree about the right amount of human suffering?

someone doesnt understand ideas

all knowledge is integrated here are the basics

percepts come from our senses and our concrete objects

we form these percept into concepts based on what we see

also once enough people understand something a concept becomes a generalization the discussion of concepts and how credible they are lies in the information required for the concept

@SantaSoc

of course people jump to concepts without defining the percepts but that makes contradiction and with a contradiction check your premises one will be wrong

we also put concepts into groups

just to remind you reason is non contradictory logic

But our current age of society is based upon morals and legalities, so in what way is this concept of trans ageism palpable to the common person in a way that allows it to not conflict with the previous sets of morals defined by society as a no go level. When we discuss policies and laws that go into effect at a governmental level, we deny one group the right to have said morals and encourage others to push for their advocation of their morals. But one thing in a group setting that worked is the majority ruled based on group opinion, backed up by reason and evidence. But is feelings enough evidence to overturn a society's way of behaving socially? Is it the individual that gets to decide that or the group? The problem like I said earlier is that our government coins what is reasonable and that is also pushed by objective bias, which isnt a negative thing but isnt the entire goal perceived by us. When we as a society determine something as a group to hold true and then upend it based upon individual opinions then we allow for others to do the same thing. The problem isnt with the previous statement more of the state of the current society which is unstable socially. Where we need rules or guidelines for what is morally correct we often get the opposite with people trying to test other boundaries.

@Existence is identity

@SantaSoc I have the answers

I have the pizza

id argue people dont have morals

I am of the perception morals are instilled upon us by the person who surround is in our formative years, mist likely our parents.

It isnt 4 am sir

@SantaSoc define morals

of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :ETHICAL

: expressing or teaching a conception of right behaviora moral poem

conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

: sanctioned by or operativeon one's conscience or ethical judgmenta moral obligation

: capable of right and wrong action

@SantaSoc altruisms morals is determined by the group

Basically conforming to a standard of right or wrong, which is the societal level of morality.

yeah that should be switched to a individual level predicated on objectivism

My gosh, it's been ages since I've heard someone defend an objective standard of morality.

Music to my ears.

What

@Bookworm lol

@Bookworm do you read any philosophers?

My philosophical background is largely Thomist Aristotelean with some Stoicism.

Marcus Aurelius and the Enchiridion, mostly.

Incoming philosophy class with the nerd

@Bookworm Thomist? as in Thomas Aquinas?

Yes.

The figurative dwarf on the giant's shoulder.

@Bookworm oh ive read a bit of Aristotle a bit of Plato and mostly Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand and Aristotle was the only one gave a objective morality

from what I believe