By definition

@RoiKadmon you're better at debunking follow ups than me can you help me out

@RoiKadmon you also forgot to give yourself more roles (look at mine as a cheatsheet for what you should add)

Fyi he's not my boyfriend just my best friend

<:GAY:583247406909358083>

Wtf is an ap?

Ancap

@RoiKadmon you're also better at definitions

It's an Anarcho-Capitalist.
An Anarchist is someone who doesn't support the existence of government and believes society is better conducted by having the individual make his / her own decisions. (In a sense, this is the 'far end' of the Libertarian side.)

What are your views on morals

@RoiKadmon no men's rights activist role smh bad boi
Also the anarchist and gamer roles

do you think they exist

I'm personally not an activist since I haven't done anything on the issue, so I thought it wouldn't be fitting to call myself one.

Also, bink, were you asking me?

or is there no such thing as morality

ya

Morality is subjective

Murder is moral if you believe it's right

And immoral if you think it's wrong

So would these morals apply to a person and their family unit

What should there be which would stop a person making his children into slaves

The only way to be an immoral person is if you belive morality isn't subjective

@bink general morality

The majority think murder is immoral

That would be general morality

Or majority morality

Or mass subjectivity

Btw these aren't terms I just am splicing words together that suit my purpose

I believe that as humans evolved over time, they developed a sense of right and wrong that allowed them to survive better as a specie. For example, inflicting pain unjustifiably was conceived to be a bad thing, because it would be bad evolutionarily speaking to fight against one's own specie, and especially towards one's own family.
That is, in a sense, 'biological' morality, which I think is closer to objective, although, perhaps it could have been different if we were another specie that survived in another way.

As to 'cultural' morality, I believe this is closer to the subjective side as each culture can 'decide' what it views as moral and immoral based on a set of principles which may be detached from the evolutionary morality.

Objectivity is also false

As a concept

It's wrong

Nothing is objective

There's objective beyond a reasonable doubt

But what makes it immoral

Because the majority say it's immoral

It's objective beyond a reasonable doubt that oxygen exists (the way it wouldn't be is if everything was a simulation)

Actually no there is 1 objective thibg

Thing*

Conciousness

Me being alive is objective fact

Even if others believe otherwise

Although theres no way of proving it to others so it's an objectivity that can only be known by a single individual

I'll correct myself, then:
I don't believe that morality is a tangible thing that exists in reality (although the chemical processes that occur in our brains when we witness something we view as moral / immoral are, although this is another topic), what I meant to say was that the 'biological' morality usually serves as a more stable foundation which is independent of the current culture one lives in, as opposed to 'cultural' morality, which is heavily dependent on that.

Bink, to respond to your question, I'd say that an action is immoral if it goes against one of the morals one holds, and one can ask what the source of that morality is.