Message from @NotQuiteHuman
Discord ID: 463183552960528394
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
"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