@_DeathByHanging@Biased_Blaise@joshreflek@reddit_lies This is my last message because I have to close the store you just admitted your framework needs a fictional setting so by definition it's not palpable have a good rest of your day
@_DeathByHanging@Biased_Blaise@joshreflek@reddit_lies Holy fuck you're grasping at straws here.. to the slogan fuck no.. when it comes to a scenario where two groups cannot survive that's a tragedy not a moral framework
@_DeathByHanging@Biased_Blaise@joshreflek@reddit_lies The answer to all those rapid serious questions is if we have empathy and care about human flourishing we ought to improve our technologies, tend to the weak and behave in the same social manner our species thrived upon
@_DeathByHanging@Biased_Blaise@joshreflek@reddit_lies You're asking all of these questions just to set the trap for me to say you ought to do something.. no.. the more a society progresses the more it cares about how we define pain and suffering.. slavery was once the norm.. thanks to secularism it isn't..
@_DeathByHanging@Biased_Blaise@joshreflek@reddit_lies Reducing secular morality to majority vote + physical safety is a strawman. By that logic, if a religion commanded necrozoophilia, it would automatically become moral to you simply because a god said so. Secularism evaluates harm and consent
@PublicEnemy9189@ClaireMax@JamesPe81670157 We are a social species and mutually respect on societal norms leads to prosperity violation of the norms brings disorder.. there that's the answer
@Biased_Blaise@joshreflek@reddit_lies Starting off there's no such thing as an atheist morality.. atheism is a non belief in a a god not a moral stand point..
Second.. if we ought to be a social species we ought to behave in favor of social norms and not in a potential dangerous way