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

Your nuance is showing 🙈

"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