4 ms·

Not ours, yours. Most primitive gauge of morality: we do not harm the innocent. Every valid moral rule involves protecting a person from destructive interfere

Not ours, yours. Most primitive gauge of morality: we do not harm the innocent. Every valid moral rule involves protecting a person from destructive interference that they are not culpable for (by will or neglect.) Every one. The times gauge how the value systems of a time change (willing to harm your neighbor for your own gain? Hammurabi brings us law.) I'd like to throw in "objective morality" however a wall of text would be required to satisfy your every unfamiliarity with how I use these words. Good is the conservation of the potential of being. Bad is the waste of the potential of being. Evil is the corruption and perversion of the potential of being. Love is the emergence of the potential of being (have some babies, you'll see what that means.) The problem is not with morals, the problems are with the cultures of people and their seasons. You don't need philosophy to explain all of this, you and yours are corrupt.

evanjrowley 2y ago
It sounds like you have a strong belief in a moralistic theory, which is pretty cool. People who believe in supporting theories through empirically derived evidence have a reason to care about what these researchers have to say. How would you convince others that your theory on morality is worth their attention? If the force of the argument is stronger than culture and seasons, then it could help make the world a better place.
- illuminant 2y ago
  No, I don't believe in moralistic theory, your contemporary ideas of thought are dusty and cringe. I also believe something can be true wether or not it can be proven, which disagrees with your hypothetical world of so few dimensions. Enjoy the research, I hold my breath for human understanding through such nuanced isolation of convention. Alas, not everything may be learned from by dissecting it further. My account of morality says there are such things as lawful and moral violence and murder (death of we were to bias the terms.) My morality says law must be entitled, competent, and uncorrupted. Such a law may go to great extremes to protect the innocent (unculpable before law). Such a law is consistently accountable for their corruption and negligence, the basis of their entitlement. I believe it revises nine thousand years of legal theory to say, "a righteous rule of law is one principled upon Truth, and serves to protect the innocent from violation by will or neglect."

evanjrowley 2y ago

It sounds like you have a strong belief in a moralistic theory, which is pretty cool. People who believe in supporting theories through empirically derived evidence have a reason to care about what these researchers have to say. How would you convince others that your theory on morality is worth their attention? If the force of the argument is stronger than culture and seasons, then it could help make the world a better place.

illuminant 2y ago
No, I don't believe in moralistic theory, your contemporary ideas of thought are dusty and cringe. I also believe something can be true wether or not it can be proven, which disagrees with your hypothetical world of so few dimensions. Enjoy the research, I hold my breath for human understanding through such nuanced isolation of convention. Alas, not everything may be learned from by dissecting it further. My account of morality says there are such things as lawful and moral violence and murder (death of we were to bias the terms.) My morality says law must be entitled, competent, and uncorrupted. Such a law may go to great extremes to protect the innocent (unculpable before law). Such a law is consistently accountable for their corruption and negligence, the basis of their entitlement. I believe it revises nine thousand years of legal theory to say, "a righteous rule of law is one principled upon Truth, and serves to protect the innocent from violation by will or neglect."