this debate is retarded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8

like.. i dunno

matt destroyed him i think

I hear noam chomsky established that there is objective morality

Albert Fish killed and ate over 30 children and didn't understand why people had a beef with it... did he just not understand morality? Or was his moral standard different?

@NotQuiteHuman say we are living inside a multiverse with infinate number of possible outcomes and realities

that would make things a bit more tricky. objective may not be universal

in this case

Here's my opinion. Morality changes according to context.

I don't even know how objective or subjective morality can be proven, in any way.. anyone acting "immorally" might have a different moral standard, or they may not understand the objectively true immorality of their actions. Is there even any chance of an consensus?

For example, Killing itself is neither moral or immoral

It is moral or immoral depending on the context

another way of thinking

killing oneself brings a wave of hurt into the universe

Killing an innocent person- immoral.
Killing a rapist in self defense - moral

via connections you made

Even killing a rapist they have a mom

And?

I said *self defense*

so it can be justified but still bringing immoral injustice

@Deleted User I think I see where you're going. Like, putting a dog out it's misery if it's twitching in gmthe road after being hit, is moral. Compared to hitting it with a baseball bat for fun.

by pain and suffering of innocent family

like the butterful effect

I said Self defense, Grayman. What you are saying can be applied to the concept of revenge

or justice

The action itself isn't immoral nor moral; rather the intent of the perpertrator

Well, not exactly

I said context, not intent

Or the consequence?

Think about this

If there's a white supremacist walking down the road

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