It seems that CK message got to me. Somehow, I don’t feel empathy.
Have you reflected on that? The less empathy you feel, the more you are honouring his memory.
And the more you celebrate the way he died, the more his message stays true.
Weird. This started as a shitpost and then got serious.
I chose to try to feel empathy for his children and still denounce gun violence and lack of action to stop it.
What they think doesn’t matter. There is stuff that is objectively good and there is stuff that is objectively bad.
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying the version of the story they tell themselves isn’t the same version others have.
Now hold up. We’ll start having too much fun with relativism if you keep talking like that.
But even being a relativist, I find being a utilitarian is really helpful for actually interacting with the world. It’s just that whatever formula you use will always be shit from the perspective of another totally legit value system.
All that to say: Yeah I agree, doesn’t matter if he thought he was Jesus. He was causing real harm to people.
He took money to harm others. There are few more evil positions.
I think objective morality gives blind spots because it can be a bit thought terminating. If you keep asking why something is good or bad, you’ll eventually find yourself at an assumption that isn’t really better than, “thats just what I feel”.
But also I get it if you don’t see it that way. I couldn’t make the phrase “good and bad are two sides of the same coin” be anything but a lie for a few years. And maybe I’m just crazy for having that make sense to me now.
But I really think that value systems and world views can’t be ranked in a vaccume. Therefore I don’t see any objectiveness.
I’m not saying everything can be ranked. There is a gray zone, there is an acceptable zone, and there is a line, which always must exist, and when anyone crosses it, they must be removed from society.
That’s why we have justice system.
Preaching hate on innocents is not legally forbidden (well, depends on the country), but it is morally wrong.
I understood your response to my last comment as a rebuttle to the idea that “any moral formula is shit from the perspective of another legit moral framework”
Therefore I assumed you thought that there is some way to objectively say, “killing people is better than not killing people.” Which even though I agree with it, I’ve found I can’t prove it without using an axiom that is just my feelings.
I think as a society we would need to understand consciousness to be able to have any hope of discovering an objective morality.
I mean yeah I agree. It would be energy intensive to try and allow everything, so obviously we don’t allow anyone to do anything. That would be unstable. But that doesn’t prove that we have objective reasons for where we draw lines. It’s all just power and negotiation.
I said something similar earlier. Glad we are all sane here.