Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disproving Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality via the Copernican Principle and Relativity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

    That just reinforces my point. God and Jesus consider the First Commandment and "Love God; and love thine neighbor" respectively to be of chief importance, because "Thou shalt not kill" is that obvious.

    It's also pretty confounding that you have the gall to insinuate that I'm the befuddled one here when you're the one acting like black-and-white morality doesn't exist. If it didn't exist, Sunday morning villains (and heroes) wouldn't be a thing. And yet, these cardboard cut-outs that try to pass themselves off as characters do exist. The vast majority of the people with "black" morals kill people, whereas the ones with "white" save people. It's almost like one is objectively good and one is objectively bad and no arbitrary deflection to "shades of gray" (which nobody was even talking about) changes that. Which would probably entail something like killing someone in self-defense in the heat of the moment, but that's what's actually subjective; more so moral relativism than an absolutism like cold-blooded murder.
    I feel the need to reiterate that nobody is saying that murder isn't objectively bad. We're just telling you that the reasoning behind that conclusion isn't because it's "objectively immoral." If it were some grand law of the universe like Wade is claiming, you wouldn't have serial killers and genocidal maniacs. Sacrifices wouldn't have been a thing. And our morals wouldn't exist on a scale where it's impossible to define an exact point where morality becomes immorality. You can't break the laws of the universe. So a universal scale of morality can't exist because humans tip those scales all the time.

    I'm honestly not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp. I don't want to get murdered, man. So I don't need some abstracted universal sense of right and wrong to tell me that I shouldn't go off and murder someone else.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

      That just reinforces my point. God and Jesus consider the First Commandment and "Love God; and love thine neighbor" respectively to be of chief importance, because "Thou shalt not kill" is that obvious.

      It's also pretty confounding that you have the gall to insinuate that I'm the befuddled one here when you're the one acting like black-and-white morality doesn't exist. If it didn't exist, Sunday morning villains (and heroes) wouldn't be a thing. And yet, these cardboard cut-outs that try to pass themselves off as characters do exist. The vast majority of the people with "black" morals kill people, whereas the ones with "white" save people. It's almost like one is objectively good and one is objectively bad and no arbitrary deflection to "shades of gray" (which nobody was even talking about) changes that. Which would probably entail something like killing someone in self-defense in the heat of the moment, but that's what's actually subjective; more so moral relativism than an absolutism like cold-blooded murder.
      These are just opinions, though.

      By that, I don't mean that there are outliers and that these outliers disprove the possibility of an objective moral code that says "killing is bad".

      By stating "these are just opinions", what I mean is that even if every living human agreed that murder is immoral and there were no serial killers or Hitlers or Stalins etc, it wouldn't change the fact that these views arise from subjective minds and the tenets are wholly dependant upon the existence of subjective minds in order to even be real. Going back to my example with RCA, we would probably say that morality does not exist in a universe without humans. In our absence, there are only animals which we do not consider to be moral agents. There wouldn't be any statement of "murder is wrong", and there wouldn't be anyone to give that tenet any meaning. That right there is highly suggestive of the idea that morality is a purely human concept reflective of our subjective experiences, and thus it inherently has no objective meaning the way that gravity and entropy do - the latter two happen or will happen regardless of whether or not we're here to observe them.

      Ultimately, there is nothing in the universe that states there is any value to anything. We are anomalous in an ever-expanding void, living within a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of time where star formation is still possible. No value statements exist at all, except with the existence of subjective minds.
      Last edited by Helly; December 2nd, 2019, 11:33 PM.

      Comment


        RussianCoffeeAddict

        Not sure whether or not you've changed your mind, but I have thought about some analogies that can be used in place of morality to demonstrate its subjectivity. Specifically, let's talk about music.

        Now, we can all probably agree that music is something that exists. Everyone. Serial killers, cannibal tribes, murderous dictators, we all agree that music is something that happens in the real world and that people can enact.

        And yet it's not objective. Not only are there varying opinions on it, not only does it differ from place to place - all of these things are ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not it exists in an objective sense. It's basically universally accepted by humans to at least exist, and yet there is nothing in the universe that states "a rhythm or a sequence of notes is music". Right? Rhythms happen all the time in nature. I've heard recordings of cave noises that are eerily musical. Yet if we were not here to say "this is what music is", then there would be no such thing as music anywhere on this planet. Thus, music does not exist in any objective sense. Notes and rhythms carry no inherent value with them, no meaning or purpose whatsoever. It is up to us to determine these things for ourselves.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Helly View Post
          RussianCoffeeAddict
          Now, we can all probably agree that music is something that exists.
          >Is doing this.
          >Right after Wade blew his lid on how science = objective morality.

          ...Fuck this shit.

          I'm gonna sperg out about computers for the rest of the night.

          ...And stress out over the 3 exams I have this week...

          ...Fuck those exams...

          Comment


            Originally posted by Cid View Post

            I feel the need to reiterate that nobody is saying that murder isn't objectively bad. We're just telling you that the reasoning behind that conclusion isn't because it's "objectively immoral." If it were some grand law of the universe like Wade is claiming, you wouldn't have serial killers and genocidal maniacs. Sacrifices wouldn't have been a thing. And our morals wouldn't exist on a scale where it's impossible to define an exact point where morality becomes immorality. You can't break the laws of the universe. So a universal scale of morality can't exist because humans tip those scales all the time.

            I'm honestly not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp. I don't want to get murdered, man. So I don't need some abstracted universal sense of right and wrong to tell me that I shouldn't go off and murder someone else.
            Wade's version of the argument is pretty bad. At least from what I see of the OP. As far as objective morality existing as a law of the universe would mean there wouldn't be killers and such, this would depend if the law is prescriptive or descriptive. If a moral law were descriptive such as the laws of physics then yes you'd be right. However, if moral laws are prescriptive then it would explain variation in our world. As far as needing a universal sense of right and wrong to tell you that you shouldn't murder, I would agree. But this is a separate issue as to if there is such a moral system that is objective or not.

            A better version of Wade's argument comes from the idea of logic being an objective fact in the universe. If it is, there is a presupposition that comes from using logic(in arguments,thinking in general,etc) is that being logical is something one should be and that logic is something one should use and that being illogical is something we should be or do. The thing is when you have should and should not this is the domain of ethical concerns(Hume went this route) . Ethics itself assumes a personal mind is involved.

            You could also go the Kantian route with morals as well.

            Comment


              Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

              >Is doing this.
              >Right after Wade blew his lid on how science = objective morality.

              ...Fuck this shit.

              I'm gonna sperg out about computers for the rest of the night.

              ...And stress out over the 3 exams I have this week...

              ...Fuck those exams...
              .....I'm not sure what you mean to say with this response. Music exists, but it's not something existing objectively in spite of us, unlike gravity. Can you acknowledge that, or do I need to explain it further...?

              Comment


                Originally posted by Helly View Post
                RussianCoffeeAddict

                Not sure whether or not you've changed your mind, but I have thought about some analogies that can be used in place of morality to demonstrate its subjectivity. Specifically, let's talk about music.

                Now, we can all probably agree that music is something that exists. Everyone. Serial killers, cannibal tribes, murderous dictators, we all agree that music is something that happens in the real world and that people can enact.

                And yet it's not objective. Not only are there varying opinions on it, not only does it differ from place to place - all of these things are ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether or not it exists in an objective sense. It's basically universally accepted by humans to at least exist, and yet there is nothing in the universe that states "a rhythm or a sequence of notes is music". Right? Rhythms happen all the time in nature. I've heard recordings of cave noises that are eerily musical. Yet if we were not here to say "this is what music is", then there would be no such thing as music anywhere on this planet. Thus, music does not exist in any objective sense. Notes and rhythms carry no inherent value with them, no meaning or purpose whatsoever. It is up to us to determine these things for ourselves.
                This argument relies to heavily on semantics. It basically amounts to "If we didn't have a classification called music, then music wouldn't exist.". But there is also nothing in the universe that says "the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass is called gravity" either. Gravity is the name we used for the observation of this happening. That's just what we do with language. I will say this though, for music to exist there must be minds. So music is a possible sub component in minds that does in fact exist. And if you subscribe to the idea that humans beings arose from the universe as part of natural process of some sort then minds are an aspect of the universe. And you don't even have to go panpsychism route for this.

                Also I wouldn't just describe music as just any rhythm or sequence of notes because of this. There has to be intent or interpretation behind it. But this is different from "music doesn't objectively exist". It may not be possible without minds, but this is like saying life doesn't exist because it's not a fundamental part of the universe. Which I guess you can argue with that but then that opens up a can of worms.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Chibz View Post

                  This argument relies to heavily on semantics. It basically amounts to "If we didn't have a classification called music, then music wouldn't exist.". But there is also nothing in the universe that says "the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass is called gravity" either. Gravity is the name we used for the observation of this happening. That's just what we do with language. I will say this though, for music to exist there must be minds. So music is a possible sub component in minds that does in fact exist. And if you subscribe to the idea that humans beings arose from the universe as part of natural process of some sort then minds are an aspect of the universe. And you don't even have to go panpsychism route for this.

                  Also I wouldn't just describe music as just any rhythm or sequence of notes because of this. There has to be intent or interpretation behind it. But this is different from "music doesn't objectively exist". It may not be possible without minds, but this is like saying life doesn't exist because it's not a fundamental part of the universe. Which I guess you can argue with that but then that opens up a can of worms.
                  That's what I meant: music is something that needs to have purpose or interpretation in order to really be anything. It's not exactly a definitions game that I'm putting forth, it's simply that these notes and rhythms needs the opinion of a subjective mind to have the meaning that we ascribe to them when we call it music.

                  Minds are part of the universe, sure, but when we're talking about objective vs subjective, we typically mean things that are in spite of what we have to say about them vs things that are that may be based in our perceptions and our biases. Music is undoubtedly the latter, and I would argue morality is the latter as well - all of its value statements arise from our viewpoint as minds having a subjective experience, and that these experiences mean something to us.
                  Last edited by Helly; December 3rd, 2019, 01:48 AM.

                  Comment


                    To further expand on the above, in case it's still not clear enough - which is entirely possible, given how mind-bending philosophy can be at times:


                    "Sarah thinks mayo is gross" is an objective statement. It describes some state in reality that is being observed and offers no opinion of its own.

                    However, Sarah's comment itself - "Mayo is frikkin gross" - is a subjective statement. Not only does she have the pro-Mayo side to contend with, but she is also just expressing a personal opinion as a subjective mind.


                    We are having a similar situation right now, both with music and with morality. Both of these things exist right now, true, but the ideas of what music is and what is or isn't moral themselves arose from subjective minds. They are wholly manufactured and rely on us to give them meaning, just as Sarah's views on Mayo depend on her to determine what it is they mean.

                    Gravity has no such basis on subjective opinion, aside from the word we have assigned to it. It will continue acting as it does, and it is not dependant on us in order to exist as a force itself. If there were no life at all in the universe, as it surely must have been for at least a couple billion years, gravity would still be a force, and sound would still be an energy that moves through mediums. They exist in spite of us. Similarly, Sarah's opinions exist in spite of minds separate from her own. They do not, however, exist in spite of her. So, while we can make objective statements describing what her opinions are, her opinion itself will never be objective.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Helly View Post

                      That's what I meant: music is something that needs to have purpose or interpretation in order to really be anything. It's not exactly a definitions game that I'm putting forth, it's simply that these notes and rhythms needs the opinion of a subjective mind to have the meaning that we ascribe to them when we call it music.

                      Minds are part of the universe, sure, but when we're talking about objective vs subjective, we typically mean things that are in spite of what we have to say about them vs things that are that may be based in our perceptions and our biases. Music is undoubtedly the latter, and I would argue morality is the latter as well - all of its value statements arise from our viewpoint as minds having a subjective experience, and that these experiences mean something to us.

                      My issue with this line of reasoning is that just because something requires a mind, it doesn't mean that it is just limited to a subjective value statement. With music it's a lot easier to speak generally about because it usually doesn't have major implications in the world. At least not the same as morality does. So I'll stick to morality as to not get lost in the music analogy. Because I think the music analogy for morality breaks down fairly early on.

                      When someone is saying "morals are objective" this doesn't rule out personal value judgement or personal experience or personal moral outlook in themselves as extant. So much as that they have a standard in which to be measured by. Of course humans as moral agents have subjective views on morality. But that's not in question. The question is if all moral philosophies are dealt from the same deck of cards or if there is one that is superior to the others outside preference. And the answer to that ultimately comes down to the kind of worldview that you have. Like I argued in my post with Cid:

                      If logic objectively exists in the universe then there is a presupposition that comes from using it. Which is that being logical is something one should be and that logic is something one should use and that being illogical is something we shouldn't be or do. The thing is when you have should and should not this is the domain of ethical concerns . Ethics itself assumes a personal mind is involved. So basically using logic assumes ethics which assumes a personal mind(s)

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Chibz View Post


                        My issue with this line of reasoning is that just because something requires a mind, it doesn't mean that it is just limited to a subjective value statement. With music it's a lot easier to speak generally about because it usually doesn't have major implications in the world. At least not the same as morality does. So I'll stick to morality as to not get lost in the music analogy. Because I think the music analogy for morality breaks down fairly early on.

                        When someone is saying "morals are objective" this doesn't rule out personal value judgement or personal experience or personal moral outlook in themselves as extant. So much as that they have a standard in which to be measured by. Of course humans as moral agents have subjective views on morality. But that's not in question. The question is if all moral philosophies are dealt from the same deck of cards or if there is one that is superior to the others outside preference. And the answer to that ultimately comes down to the kind of worldview that you have. Like I argued in my post with Cid:

                        If logic objectively exists in the universe then there is a presupposition that comes from using it. Which is that being logical is something one should be and that logic is something one should use and that being illogical is something we shouldn't be or do. The thing is when you have should and should not this is the domain of ethical concerns . Ethics itself assumes a personal mind is involved. So basically using logic assumes ethics which assumes a personal mind(s)
                        I hate to pull a JP on you lol, but it would depend on what you mean by 'logic objectively exists'. I don't even know if I agree with that, but it would depend on what you mean when you use the word 'logic'.

                        Post a tldr if you need to. I'm not gonna skim through it, dw, i love reading, lol
                        Last edited by Helly; December 3rd, 2019, 02:30 AM.

                        Comment


                          I'll get back to you later today, Have to get some sleep!

                          Comment


                          • Helly
                            Helly commented
                            Editing a comment
                            i went to bed shortly after my last response, funnily enough :p

                          Originally posted by Cid View Post

                          I feel the need to reiterate that nobody is saying that murder isn't objectively bad. We're just telling you that the reasoning behind that conclusion isn't because it's "objectively immoral." If it were some grand law of the universe like Wade is claiming, you wouldn't have serial killers and genocidal maniacs. Sacrifices wouldn't have been a thing. And our morals wouldn't exist on a scale where it's impossible to define an exact point where morality becomes immorality. You can't break the laws of the universe. So a universal scale of morality can't exist because humans tip those scales all the time.

                          I'm honestly not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp. I don't want to get murdered, man. So I don't need some abstracted universal sense of right and wrong to tell me that I shouldn't go off and murder someone else.
                          If it's unanimous that murder is bad, then it's objectively immoral. Its status as some sort of "grand law" is largely inconsequential, because you're postulating that everyone has to follow said law. They don't. In truth, it's not even a law. It's more of a criterion, really. And regardless of the subjective aspect of morality -- our actions, given the presupposition that free will truly exists -- the criterion itself will remain objective. Not even the most silver-tongued politician could spin the impetuous killing of a living creature that isn't an immediate threat to you or your way of life as a "good thing." Satan might be able to, but I'm assuming someone who doesn't believe in God probably doesn't believe in the Devil so that's neither here nor there.

                          You don't need it, yet it still exists in the form of reciprocity. And you can't claim it's entirely cultural, thus subjective, because even cavemen likely engaged in this. Flying off-the-cuff and clubbing another caveman to death sounds like a surefire way to get yourself clubbed to death in turn by a brother or friend of the deceased.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Helly View Post

                            These are just opinions, though.

                            By that, I don't mean that there are outliers and that these outliers disprove the possibility of an objective moral code that says "killing is bad".

                            By stating "these are just opinions", what I mean is that even if every living human agreed that murder is immoral and there were no serial killers or Hitlers or Stalins etc, it wouldn't change the fact that these views arise from subjective minds and the tenets are wholly dependant upon the existence of subjective minds in order to even be real. Going back to my example with RCA, we would probably say that morality does not exist in a universe without humans. In our absence, there are only animals which we do not consider to be moral agents. There wouldn't be any statement of "murder is wrong", and there wouldn't be anyone to give that tenet any meaning. That right there is highly suggestive of the idea that morality is a purely human concept reflective of our subjective experiences, and thus it inherently has no objective meaning the way that gravity and entropy do - the latter two happen or will happen regardless of whether or not we're here to observe them.

                            Ultimately, there is nothing in the universe that states there is any value to anything. We are anomalous in an ever-expanding void, living within a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of time where star formation is still possible. No value statements exist at all, except with the existence of subjective minds.
                            But why? Why aren't animals moral agents, according to you? They are sentient, are they not? Wasn't that what you were arguing in favor of in the Veganism thread? Even so, animals only kill for food, for survival. Not for sport, neither envy, nor greed. Even cats, who are dicks and play with their prey, kill to fill their bellies. Not like us. We kill "pests" out of inconvenience. Hell, we kill our own babies for that very reason. If anything, that makes animals more morally conscious than humans, tbh. Thus, if animals can feel and perceive things like humans can (empathy included), then they are moral agents. Morality being a purely human concept is the height of anthropocentrism (careful now... you're giving RCA a proximity boner...).

                            In summation, our individual "hot takes" on what is or isn't immoral is contingent on the subjective mind, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that murder is objectively wrong in the eyes of God, man, animals, and presumably little green humanoids on Mars.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post
                              If it's unanimous that murder is bad, then it's objectively immoral.
                              And that's exactly why morality is not and can never be objective. Because it's not unanimous that murder is bad. There are people who absolutely believe that murder can be justified. And depending on how you view execution, the number of people who justify it could be in the tens of millions in the United States alone.

                              That's the entire point that I've been trying to make. Morality is scale of varying shades of gray, friend.
                              Last edited by Cid; December 4th, 2019, 06:23 AM.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post

                                But why? Why aren't animals moral agents, according to you? They are sentient, are they not? Wasn't that what you were arguing in favor of in the Veganism thread? Even so, animals only kill for food, for survival. Not for sport, neither envy, nor greed. Even cats, who are dicks and play with their prey, kill to fill their bellies. Not like us. We kill "pests" out of inconvenience. Hell, we kill our own babies for that very reason. If anything, that makes animals more morally conscious than humans, tbh. Thus, if animals can feel and perceive things like humans can (empathy included), then they are moral agents. Morality being a purely human concept is the height of anthropocentrism (careful now... you're giving RCA a proximity boner...).

                                In summation, our individual "hot takes" on what is or isn't immoral is contingent on the subjective mind, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that murder is objectively wrong in the eyes of God, man, animals, and presumably little green humanoids on Mars.
                                Sentience doesn't equate to being a moral agent, and animals don't just kill for food. They kill for territory, they kill the offspring of other males, they kill for the sport in the case of domesticated animals....and that's just talking about killing. That's not even getting into all the weird rapey shit that goes on. All of that stuff happens in nature, yet we make no moral judgments on any of it because we don't view animals as moral agents. We view them as biological machines acting out primal instincts, which might be true in most cases, and so we don't view any of these acts as being manifestations of intentional evil.

                                Now, just because they lack the ability to be moral agents, that does not mean we should be killing them willy-nilly. After all, we still give the right to life to the mentally handicapped, and there's no real reason to give a baseline moral value to human life and then deny it to animals.

                                As for murder being "objectively wrong", like I said it really doesn't matter how many living things agree with it because these values are all subjective by virtue of being wholly dependant on the existence of subjective minds. If all living things ceased to exist right now, "murder is wrong" would cease to exist as well. It's an inescapable reality.

                                Comment


                                  Weird, page 9 is blank for me.
                                  Originally posted by Wade
                                  Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Morph
                                    If it's unanimous that murder is bad, then it's objectively immoral. Its status as some sort of "grand law" is largely inconsequential, because you're postulating that everyone has to follow said law. They don't. In truth, it's not even a law. It's more of a criterion, really. And regardless of the subjective aspect of morality -- our actions, given the presupposition that free will truly exists -- the criterion itself will remain objective. Not even the most silver-tongued politician could spin the impetuous killing of a living creature that isn't an immediate threat to you or your way of life as a "good thing." Satan might be able to, but I'm assuming someone who doesn't believe in God probably doesn't believe in the Devil so that's neither here nor there.

                                    You don't need it, yet it still exists in the form of reciprocity. And you can't claim it's entirely cultural, thus subjective, because even cavemen likely engaged in this. Flying off-the-cuff and clubbing another caveman to death sounds like a surefire way to get yourself clubbed to death in turn by a brother or friend of the deceased.
                                    So what formed the criteria behind what makes something objectively immoral, though? That's the deciding factor behind whether something is objective or subjective. If you can point to a universal fact, it's objective. If it was formed at any point through human thought processes, it's a subjective opinion (no matter how strong the rationale behind it would be).

                                    Also, cavemen would still have a culture, whether or not it's primitive. And if you're judging an act as moral or immoral based on other people's perspectives (in this case, the surviving family member who will then club to death the murderer), it's subjective.
                                    Last edited by OrganizationXV; December 4th, 2019, 08:48 AM.
                                    Originally posted by Wade
                                    Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Cid View Post
                                      There are people who absolutely believe that murder can be justified.
                                      No, no, slights (e.g. someone rapes your daughter, she commits suicide; you want revenge) and perceived slights (e.g. someone is a streetwalker, you believe she's going to Hell; you want to "save" her) notwithstanding, there is absolutely no justification for the cold-blooded murder of someone who hasn't done you or anyone else (to the best of your knowledge) any harm. None. And while a serial killer may just go ahead and do it anyway, it's more out of compulsion than an undue belief in moral superiority. They know what they're doing is wrong. They just don't care. And that's the aspect of morality that remains subjective. The freedom to choose to do horrific acts despite knowing better. The act of murder itself remains objectively wrong, however.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Helly View Post

                                        Sentience doesn't equate to being a moral agent, and animals don't just kill for food. They kill for territory, they kill the offspring of other males, they kill for the sport in the case of domesticated animals....and that's just talking about killing. That's not even getting into all the weird rapey shit that goes on. All of that stuff happens in nature, yet we make no moral judgments on any of it because we don't view animals as moral agents. We view them as biological machines acting out primal instincts, which might be true in most cases, and so we don't view any of these acts as being manifestations of intentional evil.

                                        Now, just because they lack the ability to be moral agents, that does not mean we should be killing them willy-nilly. After all, we still give the right to life to the mentally handicapped, and there's no real reason to give a baseline moral value to human life and then deny it to animals.

                                        As for murder being "objectively wrong", like I said it really doesn't matter how many living things agree with it because these values are all subjective by virtue of being wholly dependant on the existence of subjective minds. If all living things ceased to exist right now, "murder is wrong" would cease to exist as well. It's an inescapable reality.
                                        OK, let's mull over this a bit. If you posit that animals aren't moral agents, what then gives them the inherent right to exist? Why should humans be forced to make exceptions for them when they refuse to extend the same courtesy to others in the natural world? Top of the food chain, remember? Why should we have any greater moral obligation to them than they do to their own prey? Because we're "moral agents"? But wait, I thought morality was "subjective." If that is truly the case, "carnists" as you call them have no ethical obligation to discontinue eating meat. If the murder of human beings (presumably not for sustenance unless you're Dr. Lecter, which at least would be a position that can be feebly defended despite the connotation) isn't evil, killing inferior life forms for sustenance surely isn't either.
                                        Come on, lmao. You can't have your egg-free cake and eat it, too. :/

                                        You're just being unnecessarily meta here. That would cease to exist, because reality itself would cease to exist (I assume even God falls under "all living things"). This, however, doesn't betoken that murder = bad wasn't the moral absolute while Creation was still a thing. Gravity would also cease to exist, because there would be no celestial bodies. In fact, there would be nothing at all but a yawning, everlasting void if even that. Does that automatically entail that gravity never existed either?
                                        Last edited by Lord L'Zoril; December 4th, 2019, 09:21 AM.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X