how is a uestion wrong

^

It was conceived in the mind of a charlatan who has NEVER READ PHILOSOPHY

the uestion isn't the answer

There are no bad or wrong questions.

also, I'm leaing stuff out because some of my keys don't work on my keyboard

How are you still on this Otter?

He sounds very upset about something quite trivial.

The question is meant to be broad, the dichotomy between objective-based morality and subjective-based morality.

What is the difference between a cockroach's 2nd stomach and their cold-blooded exoskeleton?

is a pretty bad question

because it MAKES NO BIOLOGICAL SENSE

well irma didn't ask a uestion about biology

the same way her question is bad because it completely misrepresents philosophical concepts.

And how does that relate at all towards morality.

You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand the question.

IT'S A FUCKING METAPHOR YOU IDIOT

kek I know

Statistically you would be in the wrong in asserting it's a bad question.

WRONG.

Making no sense does not mean the same as misrepresentation.

You do not understand what is WRONG with the question

You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand the question.

UTILITARIAN ETHICS ARE NOT RELATIVIST FIRST OF ALL

Nobody else had problems processing it.

video just leaked of otter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7smLPz2GY

WHY WOULD YOU EVEN LUMP THOSE TWO CATEGORIES TOGETHER

I didn't, it's slashed.

BECAUSE YOU ARE DEBATING WITH PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING

As opposed to objective morality.

THERE IS NO "OBJECTIVE MORALITY"

Look at the fallacies dripping off of this person.

IT'S CALLED DEONTOLOGY

WHICH YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND CONCEPTUALLY

Utilitarian arguments for morality are often mixed with subjective arguments, in that utilitarian is subjective to material conditions.

You're getting very twisted over this.

Calm down Otter.

^

UTILITARIAN ARGUMENTS ARE CONSEQUENTIALIST

It is never that serious.