What about when there is no consequence or when the consequences is unseen to the perprator?
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
21 comments:
What I was trying to say with that question was that an evil deed can take place where the perprator does not see any consequences, but it is still evil. The falling tree makes a sound. There can even be evil things done consensually and no one involved perceives the consequences. The consequences can come later and / or to unrelated parties. So it is very incomplete to generalize the entire concept of morality to just consequence.
There is right and wrong regardless of the consequences or lack thereof. That is what morality is. We cant always wait for the results to find out what is right or wrong to do. We must know what is evil before we act.
There is right and wrong regardless of the consequences or lack thereof. That is what morality is. We cant always wait for the results to find out what is right or wrong to do. We must know what is evil before we act.
You’re still combining philosophy and sophistry here. If objective morality exists (it does), one’s personal opinion of its existence is irrelevant. “Do you believe” is the wrong way to contextualize the question.
“Objective mortality exists; why don’t people recognize and adhere to it?”
The answer, of course, is that modern society allows them to temporarily abdicate the responsibility (and avoid the consequences) of denying it… in direct exchange for physical pleasure.
“Objective mortality exists; why don’t people recognize and adhere to it?”
The answer, of course, is that modern society allows them to temporarily abdicate the responsibility (and avoid the consequences) of denying it… in direct exchange for physical pleasure.
Because people have forgotten about God and turned to trust in money and material possessions to save them.
Literally one of the oldest stories in the book.
Literally one of the oldest stories in the book.
The internet is normalizing evil. Their souls are being corrupted by the evil they consoom.
Social media in particular. Its a weaponized form of peer pressure that doesnt even need an actual majority to create the illusion of consensus. Its how the US went from openly mocking and shunning fags to fags becoming normalized and then protected in under a decade. (Of course, the ground work for the fag issue was already laid by decades of normalization propaganda by television, but television couldnt create the illusion of human interaction and essentially turn every single space into an echo chamber like social media is capable of).
Yes because subjective morality could never be useful for building a society. There needs to be at least a consensus of law for there to be order and the acceptance of absolute / objective morality is the only way.
Toast message
However, this does not produce a universal moral code, only an instinctive ethnic conscience. Stealing isn't "wrong" for the nigger any more than it is for the seagull. Murdering antelopes is wrong for antelopes, not for lions.
This is not a "belief", it's a law of Nature. If other moralities exist, they are subsumed by populations more closely following evolutionary morality. Feminist societies are always doomed, slated to return to true morality or be conquered by those who do, without fail, even if it takes over a century.
Moral systems other than evolution are just inferior mutations of the pure drive to survive.
Our entire sense of White right and wrong is based on the best way for group survival in a harsh environment filled with exclusively other Whites.