3RU7AL

The study has important implications for how we understand our moral decisions. They don’t arise out of some universal, ahistorical, hermetically sealed realm of pure reason; rather, they’re shaped by cultural norms. Hence, morals are subjective.

That logic is flawed because it conflates general things with specific things and that difference is important for example all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples, you catching my drift?

A total negation of government

I called it an example not the only example.

Why are you telling me what the Decalogue doesn’t say?

I suppose my question is, what is an imperfect government's value to an imperfect people?

Being the lesser evil to the thugs that would rule in anarchy.

If happiness is the goal, why wait until AFTER you die?

When did I say this?

Then tell me what can one hope to achieve there?

Ideally, eternal happiness.

It’s not an opinion that nobody wants to be unhappy.

What if you could make an objective case for the goal, like you would be unhappy for eternity if you don’t have this goal. The fact that nobody wants to be unhappy is objective.

But if this proposed necessity of government manifests from the imperfection of man, then how does anything less than a perfect government serve as a remedy? To regulate an imperfect people, it's necessary to impose an imperfect government? That's redundant and unnecessary. If we're going to tally up a score between man and government, the government would lose easily as it concerns which of them is closer to "angelic." Governments, for example, have been institutions perpetuation the largest mass murders, and there's not even a close second.

I suppose my question is, what is an imperfect government's value to an imperfect people?

If I claim “the earth is round”, the standard is reality.

it is a dehumanizing word on a level no word in the English language can compare to.

anti-language + anti-math = a return to the caves

The non-independent, non-individual human fetus sovereignty lies with the pregnant mother to be.

Eternal happiness doing what?

I don’t know, why does that matter?

Then tell me what can one hope to achieve there?

Ideally, eternal happiness.

... Seriously? Are you honestly taking this dialogue seriously?

I don’t know, I don’t follow Hinduism.

DETECTING MOTIVE IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WITCHCRAFT.

Not really, all professional detectives (profilers being the absolute specialist detectives in that field) and judges do it and measure it into how they proceed. Not to mention psychiatrists, therapists etc.

I don’t know why?

Is this a meaningless life?

No, that’s why I believe in a heaven that validates that life.

Maybe but it’s the only logical position there is if there is no heaven.

I'm not convinced any dead people "want" anything.

Well if your right then nihilism is correct.

Madison was well aware that the practical application of the Constitution would not be perfected, but it is still the best means to govern men yet established this side of heaven.

It's almost as if functioning as a good ("moral") person is independent of the institution known as government.

What happens when there's a government impropriety?

Some people actually do not want to be happy.

How do you know? And how do you know that doesn’t change if they’re in hell?

And yet, simply because you personally don't understand it, doesn't make it stop.

Whatever like I said you only know them as they are (alive).

Masochism makes no sense and you only know them as they are (alive).

Even if you consider "get to heaven" an AXIOM, there are still about eleven-zillion ways to make that happen.

Be a good person that’s the only way I can think of.

Please provide a specific example.

Do I really need to provide a specific example of someone thinking about doing something before they actually do it?

Would you say, "breaking an immoral law is moral"?

Got any examples?

so if theirs objective proof that you should have a goal (heaven) that proof overrules any subjectivity.

Even if all humans agreed on something, (like avoiding unhappiness) that agreement itself (argumentum ad populum) would not magically transform their opinions into FACTS.

It’s not an opinion that nobody wants to be unhappy.

ALL LAWS ARE MORAL.

Not necessarily, but breaking the law is immoral.

Because colloqualism 

That is what the mods mean by objective. The fact that this has to be explained to a bunch of people this intelligent is sad.