2:16:07You can't punish someone for something that hasn't happened yet, that's unfair
2:16:10That morals are absolute, not relative by person or culture
2:16:14I dunno, last philosopher I studied was Thomas Aquinas
2:16:23That would be if there are immutable laws that divide everything into complete good or complete evil
2:16:24Like I said, false alternatives
2:16:26:_jellyPet::_jellyPet::_jellyPet:
2:16:26nihilism?:_jellyConfused::_jellyConfused::_jellyConfused:
2:16:27Objective morality means there are concrete things that are good or evil, e.g. cannibalism, infanticide, charity, etc.
2:16:31"your opinion is wrong" - average forum response
2:16:32Authoritarianism is definitely evil in my book.
2:16:32Whatever you do, do not use Hegelian Dialectics to resolve this question
2:16:38absolutism = never kill the puppy, relative = theres no evil so killing the puppy is never truly wrong
2:16:39I think relativism is a scale, either morals are absolute or they're not, if they're not it's just case-by-case
2:16:40A good alternative between the two is that all rituals and perceptions of morality are based on objective truth regardless of perceived observation.
2:16:40even in the Bible there is righteous war
2:16:41You first have to separate morals and ethics
2:16:42No, because there is a difference between murder and defending
2:16:45...that would be a dangerous philosophy
2:16:45I’m not sure I agree but sure
2:16:47It’s more about whether or not moral systems are equivalent to each other