Jesh Peep

🍥 Buy another Dreamcast 🍥
(Tinky/Winky)

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

Good Greof

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@xonphused Not according to Catholics or Orthodox christians

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@athiestboi Nope!

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@GoldenKaos @fightingaimnerd @chlorbee So answer the question?

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@GoldenKaos @fightingaimnerd @chlorbee Then why don't you stop dancing around the issue and say which flavor of subjectivism you subscribe to

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@GoldenKaos @fightingaimnerd @chlorbee If you think that fucking roadkill is disgusting but the person doing it doesn't then we're just stuck at subjective morality that means absolutely nothing

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@GoldenKaos @fightingaimnerd @chlorbee To show that disgust doesnt determine good and evil ontologically

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker Drunk driving is a wrong kind of act because of these sorts of outcomes and they're responsible for the unintended outcomes of their act

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker Acts are defined by intent. The drunk driver kills the driver but doesnt murder them. They're still responsible for the outcome. Principle of double effect only applies to actions that have both a positive a negative effect though so that doesnt apply here.

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker Actions are defined by intent. Killing someone in self defense using proportional force to preserve your life is a permissable act. Shooting someone who's attacking you because you hate them amd you want them to die is murder and an immoral act

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker So you'd say both of them are correct? Is every police officer who's ever shot and killed someone who was a potential threat correct? You should only use proportional force necessary to preserve your life without intending the death of the other

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker It really doesn't. If you intend to kill the person when it's not necessary then it's wrong. Principle of double effect is pretty clear on cases of self defense. If you must kill someone attacking you to preserve your own life then it's okay but not if it's to preserve your TV

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker And it seems like you dont think that. I believe that it is an objective truth that that action is either morally permissable or impermissable. And if I'm wrong about whether it is or isn't then I'm wrong but there's still an objective truth to it

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker I believe that every individual act is either morally permissable or morally impermissable and that there are good and bad kinds of acts

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@thuczacz @FabTheWoker @Momotorocc 62% of philosophers in the study subscribe to moral realism and 26% lean towards it. Im not going to name every philosopher on the planet nimrod

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@thuczacz @FabTheWoker @Momotorocc https://t.co/daBWSDw5mN

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@GoldenKaos @fightingaimnerd @chlorbee Disgust is a horrible way to frame it. I don't think jello is ontologically evil because I find it disgusting

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker And you think that they're completely correct in thinking so because there's no objective truth to the matter?

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker I dont care about other situations I'm asking if it's objectively evil to kill 1 million innocent people *for no reason*

[Jesh Peep @JeshPeep]

@StevesRawMind @Momotorocc @rexparvum @FabTheWoker Why do you feel the need to deflect to saying something like that? That has nothing to do with any of what i said. Regardless, why do you think its wrong and do you think that it's an objectively evil thing?