this seems relative
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Ok but what if morality is subjective..? My morals say that killing puppies is bad, and people who do it are bad.

But with universalism, killing a Nazi is bad. Because it's killing. With universalism, humanity is attempting to assign intent to the universe and say that the natural state of being for morality is that killing is bad. It's simply not true. Perhaps in most cases, but not all. That's not universalism, by definition.

Am I woefully misunderstanding something here ..?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Well with objective universalism, killing is good, as unlife is the most common state of existence, it can never be immoral to unalive something.

    If the universe has intent, it clearly is moving all things towards low entropy unlife, and as such unaliving is to carry out a moral good, and always moral, no?

    /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I know you're taking a piss, but why would forcing all things to be the same be necessarily moral?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    When arguing for a universal intent, it's typically argued as virtuous/moral to further that intent, or at least immoral to go against that intent.

    The conclusions are bunk because the premise is bunk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment