(June 26, 2017 at 2:39 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(June 26, 2017 at 2:34 pm)Astonished Wrote: You can't fucking say that any act is always wrong 100% of the time! What the fuck?!
An objective morality -doesn't- say that, and neither did I, so? Here, lets try another example.
Let;s say that the person who gets run over was an assualt rifle wiedling madman spraying bullets into the crowd, and a person intentionally ran them over.
Is that bad, neutral, good? What objective facts of this moral matter are at play when we give him a Heroes Parade?
And here I thought you were unable to understand the exact concept you just outlined. I already gave a rather grim but arguable example of how rape might not be harmful or at least it would outweigh the negative consequences (extinction) which you didn't seem to either acknowledge or at least didn't care to say 'rape is bad in all but some odious hypothetical scenarios' which is why I have such a hard time nailing down this 'objective' thing when there's always exceptions to the damn rule.
Here's an actual problem with your little scenario there, though. Should the driver have tried to avoid killing the gunner so as to stop him from firing but provide an opportunity for rehabilitation? Would it have been okay if the only victim that would have fallen due to this restraint were a senior citizen with no family or friends to miss him (since that means the same amount of people, namely 1, would have died)? I mean, fuck, if that's not subjective, what the fuck is? Or how would any empirical data help justify either case? Sure, in hindsight you could look at the shooter's mental health history and how likely they are to rehabilitate, but in the moment? That don't count for shit. Opinion still dominates what ultimately determines what gets written down as being the right thing, but you're not going to get a consensus (or at least only a reluctant one) even if what little contribution the objective data provides plays a role in that kind of 'woulda coulda shoulda' debate.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.