I believe child abuse whether it be mental physical, verbal, or emotional is objectively weong morally as well as bullying people.
What if the world would end if you didn't abuse a child? Would it still be morally wrong to abuse the child or is it wrong to let the world end?
With all due respect, obviously it wouldn’t be wrong but hypotheticals like this are meaningless and so absurd and doesn’t address the question.
It's a brain exercise. If you say it is objectively wrong then it would still be wrong in this situation. Its a hypothetical showing you that your morals are subjective and conditional.
Many thing like child molesting and animal abuse
Polygamy
Good point I concede this topic to you. I guess in the context of our world it is wrong
I really don't know. I stopped caring about morality a long time ago.
Maybe animal abuse?
Maybe animal abuse?
Any type of child neglect and abuse, same as bringing them into world if you are poor or genetic trash.
D
People are going to jump on me for this but
>Abuse against children
Totally agree, children are pure innocence and to harm them is to harm God himself
>Racism
Judging others by the color of their skin is evil. It is akin to lookism
>Homosexuality
I see it as sinning against God and dignity.
>Suicide
I think suicide is evil, it is destroying the one chance at life you have that God gave you
And this is where you get more into my opinion
>Voting Republican
I think voting Republican in this day and age is evil, because it's a party that is Ontologically evil. The Republicans don't seem to have any plan they want to accomplish other than destroy the country as much as possible.
I agree with everything except the last part. I’m not republican but I know many good people who vote republican. Idk I’m not good with politics. Anyway, suicide is definetely selfish, you affect many others besides yourself.
Ye
a animals are like children, completely innocent
Yea tbh
why would someone hats subhuman bring a child into the world it’s selfish IMO
It's an interesting question to which I have no absolute answer.
The universe has harmony and disharmony. High energy and low energy. Order and chaos.
Your actions can either cause harmony or disharmony. Your vibration can either be high or low. You can either promote order or chaos.
Morality has to be self-consistent in order to function.
Philosophers observed that immoral individuals don't like when their actions are replicated against them: the rapist doesn't want to be raped, the robber doesn't want to be robbed, the murderer doesn't want to be murdered, and so forth.
Morality has to be established in a way that it doesn't contradict itself immediately. The more consistent with reality, the more objective it is. Though I'm not convinced it's entirely objective.
My two cents.
The universe has harmony and disharmony. High energy and low energy. Order and chaos.
Your actions can either cause harmony or disharmony. Your vibration can either be high or low. You can either promote order or chaos.
Morality has to be self-consistent in order to function.
Philosophers observed that immoral individuals don't like when their actions are replicated against them: the rapist doesn't want to be raped, the robber doesn't want to be robbed, the murderer doesn't want to be murdered, and so forth.
Morality has to be established in a way that it doesn't contradict itself immediately. The more consistent with reality, the more objective it is. Though I'm not convinced it's entirely objective.
My two cents.
Last edited:
D
I'll take back that voting republican is evil... it's evil if you know how bad the party is. I think a lot do but they are so one-sided they do it anyway to piss off team blue.
I thought about this for a while. Morality is the actions you take. No genuine moral person would put himself in a situation where he has to choose between two evil options because the outcome would be immoral regardless of the final choice, so logically he would avoid a situation like that at all costs.
If he was forced to choose any of those options, no moral judgment could be applied to him because it wasn't a choice of his own. It's like being held at gunpoint and asked to rape someone, otherwise that person would get murdered. Are you really immoral for surrendering to the pressure of the situation when you knew there's nothing you could do to prevent a disaster? It wasn't a choice. There's no morality involved.
Then who's to blame in a situation like that? Anyone who put you in that situation to begin with, whether a criminal, nature itself, or God.
I like that answer. You've got a good thinker
Women
Similar threads
solblue
Users who are viewing this thread
