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

All that matters, is himself

I have considered that zutt, hence my question before; it was a serious question:

Did he just not understand morality?

Or was his moral framework just different?

@zutt Not moral autism, he seems to have a lack of any sort of empathy

Well that would imply he had a moral sense and didnt care

He didn't understand morality. I can say this, because in a way, morality is heavily dependent on the concept of Empathy

From your sentence

Yeah I agree with you tbh shiv.

To understand how you can be hurt, is to understand how to hurt others. Then just don't do that, because empathy.

That's the basis for the objective morality argument I guess. .

But then, some people think differently. "Its a dog eat dog world".

Like, if I can fuck you over and make my life easier, I should be able to do so.

And you should be able to do the same to me. But I'll make it as hard as possible for you to do so out of self protection/self interest.

Not how I think, but genuinely how some people perceive the world. And if some people perceive the world that way, how can morality be objective across the board.

@Rils @Deleted User hey so I'm going to try and make the "why you do not see 'whites only' signs in the windows of American businesses anymore" short. So the people who lived in the 13 colonies that declared independence from King George III didn't want to live under a tyrant who could just tell them what to do, so they purposely made the governments ability to make laws hard.

So having a "whites only" sign in your business was legal, until the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" prohibited discrimination in "public accommodations" based on: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Having a "whites only" sign was mandated by law under Segregation laws.