so is theft wrong? @President Sanders📍🇺🇸

I get that morality is not rooted in genetics

But what I define as objectively wrong is something that is clearly wrong even if some people disagree

I know its self centered

but in some scenarios

only the vile will disagree that something is objecitvely wrong

@Deleted User not objectively. But to judge it would really depend on context.
Stealing from a poor beggar? Pretty wrong.
Stealing from a rich billionaire that wouldn't even notice and it wouldn't affect his health or life negatively? Not really.

stealing from the rich isn't as bad as stealing from a poor man, but it is still wrong

because its theft

Is murdering an entire orphanage objectively wrong?

and then defiling their corpses?

and then burning the building down

There is no context that could justify that

At the end of the day humanity has had a primal source for morality since its days fighting other animals in the plains. We had rites of purgation to exile perceived threats to our communities, common things to bring us together (such as rituals), and of course the worry of incest (which is why we used to mate with other humanoids if we were out of options). I mean its not objective morality, but still.

Its simply too excessive

Don't give me the **Oh but a divine entity said he would blow up the earth if you didn't**

@21ooAB The only context to justify this would be a faction committing utterly atrocious war crimes for the hell of it.

@Benuty But its still objectively wrong

The thing is, you can justify anything

@21ooAB I never said it wasn't, but people will justify anything especially if it produces results.

But that does't ever make it right

even if some psychopaths disagree

An example "beat ten to encourage one hundred others to rush into a trench line".

War often brings out our most fucked ideas, but if you hire people to get results...you get all the baggage that comes with it.

I'm of the mindset that if you do something that's considered "wrong", get away with it and it doesn't negatively affect the "victim" in such circumstance, then it's totally okay. Some people could live by their own rules and morals and do fine, but their are so many people, and so many (frankly, idiots), that government then becomes needed to dictate what many do.

But really, if the universe is left with just black holes and inanimate objects, did anything really matter? Did the so-called human morals really mean anything?

basically it ultimately depends if you believe in god or not lol, this question if morality is objective and real, then god exists. But if not then it is just a figment of our imagination and we need not worry what we do as long as we can make up a reason to justify it.

I would say morality is objective as evidenced by the similarity between 99% of cultures as to certain rules. Biology does not dictate morality if it did just look to animals to see how they do abhorrent things regularly because instincts.

A world of moral relativism is coming to fruition today in the west, where there is now a battle being fought for pedophilia. As wrong as it is, beyond any concept of harm, it is winning this battle.

There are also many religious scholars that make quite damn good arguments for morality, based in reality, its quite interesting. The line is rathe robjective.

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

- Could UBI (Universal Basic Income) work, if so, how would *you* implement it?

No

an income even if you don't work?

no

No

No.

Not really. It would disincentivize people from working toward higher potentials, and it would inevitably raise prices on goods in long term. I know Milton Friedman advocated something similar in the 1970s and 80s, called the Negative Income Tax. From some observations, it would have most likely had the same issues as the UBI, and is more of a radical, libertarian way of reforming taxation.

There is objective evidence that implementation of UBI, whether by government or nonprofits, affects the targeted groups and regions positively in an economic sense. While there will surely be many more UBI studies over the next few years and even decades, clear empirical evidence currently supports the implementation of UBI as a means of combating poverty. These cases including programs in Namibia, Brazil, Canada and others not described here provide empirical evidence supporting some form of basic or unconditional incomes. Few programs had clear negative effects on a population’s economic growth or personal incentives. However, as of 2016 there still are not enough practical studies and examples of UBI implementation on a large scale to definitively conclude that UBI will succeed in major nations such as the US or EU.

Bro

I love how in the democrat debate they told yang UBI would cost 3 trillion

And he was like, we'll get 800 billion from taxing corporations.

Wait a second Chief, that math don't add up

UBI can work

But only when automation replaces the majority of low skilled jobs and production increases to the point the standard of living could reasonably be comfortable for everyone

Where it would be nearly impossible to get a low skilled job and there are only a small number of high skill jobs, UBI can work