So murder is fine, most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong. Correct?
They are opinions, they aren’t weightless, and they aren’t ambiguous there are a few almost no one disagrees with because their obviousness is so outrageously apparent.
Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral, simply overlooking that fact for profit only reinforces my point.
What’s fine mean? You’re just using it as a standin for “good” or “acceptable” which again, has no meaning without a subject. Fine for what? Good or acceptable for who?
most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong
What?
Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral
Then why, for hundreds of years, was it considered so moral in America that it took an entire war to change it? Because most people individually all just happened to lack this obvious, natural morality? Or is it because ideas of morality are made up, arise from material conditions, and are systemically reproduced in a society? That they were able to create a system of moral justifications that excused them in their own minds for supporting slavery, just like liberals today have a system of moral justifications that excuse them in their own minds for supporting the Gaza genocide?
You seem to think that “right and wrong” exist in some pure elemental form somewhere out in the universe, the way carbon and potassium do, some baseline that human actions can be measured against. They don’t. Right and wrong are figments of the human imagination, and only by accepting them for the shadows that they are can we stop chasing them in circles and finally begin to think in useful, concrete, scientific terms.
They’re not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless.
This is a tautology, this is the same argument as “God is real because we live under religious law.”
Like…yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what’s Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people?
wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless.
We do not do this, all of Epstein’s pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations.
Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn’t science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton’s and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream).
So murder is fine, most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong. Correct?
They are opinions, they aren’t weightless, and they aren’t ambiguous there are a few almost no one disagrees with because their obviousness is so outrageously apparent.
Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral, simply overlooking that fact for profit only reinforces my point.
What’s fine mean? You’re just using it as a standin for “good” or “acceptable” which again, has no meaning without a subject. Fine for what? Good or acceptable for who?
What?
Then why, for hundreds of years, was it considered so moral in America that it took an entire war to change it? Because most people individually all just happened to lack this obvious, natural morality? Or is it because ideas of morality are made up, arise from material conditions, and are systemically reproduced in a society? That they were able to create a system of moral justifications that excused them in their own minds for supporting slavery, just like liberals today have a system of moral justifications that excuse them in their own minds for supporting the Gaza genocide?
You seem to think that “right and wrong” exist in some pure elemental form somewhere out in the universe, the way carbon and potassium do, some baseline that human actions can be measured against. They don’t. Right and wrong are figments of the human imagination, and only by accepting them for the shadows that they are can we stop chasing them in circles and finally begin to think in useful, concrete, scientific terms.
They’re not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless.
This is a tautology, this is the same argument as “God is real because we live under religious law.”
Like…yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what’s Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people?
We do not do this, all of Epstein’s pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations.
We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, cool try though.
You literally described society ya genius.
That doesn’t negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
What’s the total weight of morals right now, in Newtons?
A newton is a measure of force not weight. So how fast are they moving and in what direction.
Weight is a force.
What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in?
Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics.
Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement.
Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn’t science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton’s and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream).