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.

It gets a lot harder to sort out between Emancipation and Segregation how much discrimination there was

In that era, many businesses pushed back saying the federal government had no power to tell them how to run their businesses that were local, raised the chickens out back, customers were only from that town, etc.

But if we're talking about the Jim Crow era, segregation wasn't just legal, it was mandated.

Many businesses pushed back against the state laws saying they had to segregate too.

You don't correct government overreach with more government overreach.

And remember the part about "didn't want to live under a tyrant", the federal government had to find a way to prohibit discrimination, but do it in a way that I'm sure the local businesses considered tyranical

They fought tyranny with more tyranny, and it's had major consequences

So they went back to the constitution, and found a section called "the commerce clause" that regulated interstate business, and interpreted that to mean that discrimination in public accommodations was related to the trade between the sates

And of course, it was fought then, lots of people tried to make lots of arguments against it. But that's why you don't see those signs in the windows of American businesses today

The courts created a bad precedent for more tyranny.

@Rils yes they did

The courts had also previously found Separate but Equal to be constitutional

I don't like to rely on the courts for legislation

It's not a great system

It's just better than all the others

Judging by the reaction today to the power of SCOTUS, I'm not quite sure

Amend the Constitution if you want to clarify the powers of the Fed, don't have SCOTUS make up new definitions that aren't there.

I once heard my father (this was like 20 years ago) wonder aloud what would happen if the President directly acted against a ruling from SCOTUS. I want to say it's a constitutional question that's not come up in 200+ years