Blackpill People are not good or evil, they're just ego seeking with low willpower.

[Pinpoint]

And anyone who tells you people are good or someone is bad is just someone who is trying to grift you.

Those who are good at manipulating/ demonizing/ scaring or foisting psychological pressure on people decide what is good. Not the morally righteous. It's a part of the ego seeking game of the majority.

Sure some nice people with high oxytocin who feel deeply exist. But don't count on them.

Philosophy isn't about 100% truth. It's about seeing and telling patterns that help us thrive against the crap.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

I agree, but your actions can be judged as good or bad

 

[pedrolopezwasright]

If by people you mean men then yes

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

If by people you mean men then yes

I agree, I also don't consider women anthropologists to be on the same level as men.

 

[ShadowSunshine88]

I agree, but your actions can be judged as good or bad

Not really

 

[wereq]

Bad is what degrades a system and compromises our living.

 

[Ubermenschvirtues]

The concepts of right or wrong came from armed people.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Not really

Yes, you idiot, kill someone, your action is considered bad. Don't give me existentialism, good and evil are not relative, essence precedes existence, going against that is a fagot complex.

 

[ShadowSunshine88]

Yes, you idiot, kill someone, your action is considered bad. Don't give me existentialism, good and evil are not relative, essence precedes existence, going against that is a fagot complex.

Seeing the world in such a binary view is a low iq trait. No, it isn’t and never will be that simple you primitive being.

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

that is evil

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Seeing the world in such a binary view is a low iq trait. No, it isn’t and never will be that simple you primitive being.

You're trying to talk about "nuances", aren't you, but I mean, wrong context to use such a concept.

Obviously I'm primitive, because I'm reactionary. Sucker.

And if your word “primitive” is approached in a pejorative way, see the hypocrisy, because it is not noticeable in the scenario (in a pejorative way for me), where you are saying that actions are not good and bad, with no basis for judging , other than an opinionated opinion. source that is yours alone. So, in a pejorative way, you would be the “primitive”, well; antoadjectives are unnecessary now.

But, well, how does that refute what I said?, it doesn't refute it, you don't change the facts with your reductionism, and you don't come to me with positivism on moral issues, or else in your antoadjective of calling me low IQ, no there is nothing to say, just don't say it, as you will end up saying incorrect things.

 

[Jud Pottah]

"There is no good or Evil, ONLY PowER"

 

[Shitskin=Shitlife]

I disagree. I have met legitimately evil people. They aren't that rare.

 

[Pinpoint]

I disagree. I have met legitimately evil people. They aren't that rare.

Plenty of worse people who will demonize them. Or people who will be sick of them who will kill them.

but go ahead tell me who they are.

 

[Limitcel]

Philosophy is also a art about showing the obvious to those who don't see it.

 

[Simba]

Nah. I have met people whom enjoy hurting people even if there is nothing to gain from it.

 

[Simba]

If by people you mean men

Lol.

 

[Pinpoint]

Nah. I have met people whom enjoy hurting people even if there is nothing to gain from it.

most people aren't that way. and people do it because it gives them an ego boost. not just pleasure.

 

[ResidentHell]

Yes, you idiot, kill someone, your action is considered bad. Don't give me existentialism, good and evil are not relative, essence precedes existence, going against that is a fagot complex.

Morality is relative to human perception and cognizance. If the knowledge of evil didn’t exist, you would have no way to prove or disprove its existence. The same goes for if the knowledge of good didn’t exist. The matter of fact is the concept of morality is contingent on existence of knowledge; it is a concept that is essentially relative to the existence of knowledge. Beyond the realm of consciousness, the “essence” of good and evil is ambiguous or else non-existent. This is simple logic

If a tree falls down in the forest, but no one was there to witness it, did the tree make a sound when it fell?

Even if you think it did or didn’t make a sound, there’s no way for you to prove beyond doubt whether the tree made a sound or not. The same can be extended to “moral events”. If something happens, but no one was there to witness the result of what happened, can you be sure that the result of what happened amounted to a “Good action” or “Evil action”? No, you cannot

 

[GeneticDysfunction]

I agree, but your actions can be judged as good or bad

Nothing is good or bad people just want to avoid pain and survive.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Morality is relative to human perception and cognizance. If the knowledge of evil didn’t exist, you would have no way to prove or disprove its existence. The same goes for if the knowledge of good didn’t exist. The matter of fact is the concept of morality is contingent on existence of knowledge; it is a concept that is essentially relative to the existence of knowledge. Beyond the realm of consciousness, the “essence” of good and evil is ambiguous or else non-existent. This is simple logic

If a tree falls down in the forest, but no one was there to witness it, did the tree make a sound when it fell?

Even if you think it did or didn’t make a sound, there’s no way for you to prove beyond doubt whether the tree made a sound or not. The same can be extended to “moral events”. If something happens, but no one was there to witness the result of what happened, can you be sure that the result of what happened amounted to a “Good action” or “Evil action”? No, you cannot

You use abstract theories about yourself, hypothetical scenarios to build your vision, instead of focusing on the concrete experience of how the world is perceived, through reason. When we talk about real contexts, where all human actions have tangible consequences and do not depend solely on observers to be considered “good” or “bad”. Morality, unlike sounds or physical events, involves human relationships, intentions, and outcomes that directly affect the lives of other people. His argument overly reduces important ethical issues by focusing on unrealistic scenarios that do not capture the structure of morality in the real world. This undermines what you say, as behavior and morality are often involved in social interactions and responsibilities that do not depend solely on individual perception.

"Beyond the realm of consciousness, the “essence” of good and evil is ambiguous or else non-existent. This is simple logic"

Human consciousness does not exist in isolation, but rather in a body that interacts with the world. The body, being a vehicle of consciousness, translates these intentions into concrete actions, where good and evil manifest themselves in a tangible way through your choices. Conscience is the means by which we perceive and act in accordance with moral concepts, the idea of good and evil transcends only your individual perspective. It manifests itself in physical form through the choices that man makes with his body. Morality is not something merely abstract.

 

[Pinpoint]

Nothing is good or bad people just want to avoid pain and survive.

More so (with young women) be dominant and perfect.

 

[theloneunit]

All people are evil and disease to planet earth