Message from @JogaFlame
Discord ID: 487114968429494283
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
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.
THE WHOLE FRAMEWORK BETRAYS A TOTAL MISCOMPREHENSION OF PHILOSOPHY
IT'S NOT A STRAWMAN
Turn off caps lock
@εïз irma εïз I am not "trolling you" or "shitposting"
I was afraid of being incorrect. @εïз irma εïз
I am pointing out a fatal misunderstanding of ethics
Was thinking of that word however
Can you not indulge yourself in some mental gymnastics or flawed theoretical questions? @Deleted User
Being afraid of incorrect will turn you into something like Otter.
I love being incorrect
@CrowGoCaw listen here, you little shit, I have a doctorate in this field.