Message from @JogaFlame
Discord ID: 487114733410058272
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
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.
Turn off your caps lock.
HOW ARE YOU EVEN DEFENDING THIS LEVEL OF IGNORANCE
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE
THOSE ARE EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONCERNS
NOT ETHICAL CONCERNS
Because practically smashing your keyboard and typing in all caps does not help you out.
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY
Calm down.
otter in new york
who cares about the specifics if people understand the question
if at the end of the day it all means the same thing why bother with the loose ends
BECAUSE THEY ARE APPLYING EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONCERNS TO ETHICS
WHICH MAKES NO SENSE
Because then he wouldn't have a reason to go off on a tangent.
IT DOESN'T APPLY
Justin, the word you're looking for is strawman.