No. I believe morality is universal. This does not suggest that the far-reaching consequences of your actions align with the morality of those actions. I think Julius Caesar was pretty consistently a scumbag. I also think he has had a profoundly positive effect on history. This is not a contradiction, you are inserting your own suppositions into my beliefs.

The greatest results are the greatest reduction of evil. This is not necessarily accomplished on a large scale by one person acting morally, because again, you are not privy to the ultimate consequences of your actions beforehand. However, you can largely eliminate the evil you are directly responsible for. Perhaps this paves the way for greater good or greater evil in the next generation, this is mindless speculation. Perhaps what we all ought to do is act more like Julius Caesar. Mindless speculation. Your control is extremely limited.

You asked me what I believe, so I told you. You seem to now be arguing that I do not believe those things. This is strange behavior.

mark of the beast
social credit system- (china- most advanced surveillance system in the world)

I think you should have a conversation with majorblood about this

he probably already knows about it

you don't understand the issue, you have not determined what the 'good' (ontological status of 'good') is and you have no epistemic justification of that good, your attempt at justification (justification is not what something is, but how we know it is the case) for this undefined "good" is "reason" but I have given the example that limited human reason can give two separate people opposite conclusions on what the "good" is so for it to be universal it cannot simply be subjective and this requires a normative authority. you reject a normative authority, and even reject 'oughts' which makes your entire claim of objective morality as a universal to collapse completely.

when you say " I think Julius Caesar was pretty consistently a scumbag. I also think he has had a profoundly positive effect on history." it is a psychological report followed by an ontogically empty claim of the status of "positive effect". to say something has a positive effect requires there to be a universal we can point to that is 'positive', a moral universal which you have still not shown the status of. you are smuggling in transcendental categories which have metaphysical baggage but you are ignoring the metaphysical baggage.

"The greatest results are the greatest reduction of evil." is an empty statement, you have not given the ontological status on "greatest" or the metaphysical status of "evil" (as I personally do not believe evil has an ontological status but this isn't relevant).
What is evil? What is great? How do you know this is the case? without answering these basic questions this statement is an empty platitude that collapses under basic philosophical scrutiny.

"This is not necessarily accomplished on a large scale by one person acting morally,"

this again applies to "acting morally". what is "acting morally" should we act morally only if the consequences are "good"? whatever "good" means. how do you know this is the case?

"largely eliminate the evil"
again, what is evil and why ought we eliminate evil?

I'm not saying what you feel is not what you feel, I am saying your worldview is rationally incoherent.

your inbox was full, merry christmas.

Well, yes, people are flawed and can come to incorrect conclusions using flawed logic. Obviously. This does not suggest that reason can not be applied properly.

People can be wrong about the universal morality, just like they can be wrong about everything else.

The normative authority is the universal.

Evil is the reverse of the good. I do not claim to be a prophet, I don’t have a list for you inscribed in stone.

Again, you asked what I believe. You did not ask what I know. I wish you had, this could have been a much shorter conversation. We have established that you disagree with the things that I believe. That’s great.

"This does not suggest that reason can not be applied properly. " this presupposes what "properly" means and what correct conclusions are, which presupposes there is a good, teleology, objective universals and to say people be wrong presupposes the "right" which you have not given a definition of. What is the good? How do you know this is the case?

to say "The normative authority is the universal. " is a circular non-answer, universal morality is a concept not something with will or power to arbitrate between two competing ideas. you are essentially saying 'morality is the authority on morality' this does not give any value to the question of 'if two competing moralities exist, how do we determine which one is true? what is the normative authority we can appeal to determine true morality?" and your answer is "to determine morality we can appeal to morality" do you understand how this is incoherent?

"Evil is the reverse of the good. I do not claim to be a prophet, I don’t have a list for you inscribed in stone. " is an empty statement, to say "X is the opposite of Y" we need to know what X is for it to have any value, you have not said what good is and how you know this is the case, to say evil is the opposite of that is meaningless.

I asked what your worldview is and your epistemic justification for it several times, honestly pretty much in every reply which means 'how do you know this is the case'

if it's all just your opinion, no justification, no rationality, no coherency, yet claim objective morality exists and there are no oughts at the same time your entire worldview is simply "BOOO MURDER!!"

It does however mean that reason is insufficient in establishing truth. Because reason is fundamentally biased by the personality of the one undertaking reason. It's why rationalism is bunk and was overtaken by empiricism (which even itself is insufficient, but more sufficient than purely reason)

Reason is what is causing all madness in our society today. People have reasoned that mutilating children is somehow moral and good because of a nebulous idea of a 'gender soul', which was purely reasoned into with zero empirical observation. It's madness is what it is. Jesus' divinity in contrast was not only directly empirically observed (e.g. the ressurection amongst other miracles performed by Him) but also revealed by revelation or epiphany.

Normative authority is trivially disproven by simply observing the Aztecs amongst other evil civilizations and empires who commanded 'normative authority'

This post was edited by El1te on Dec 28 2025 09:03pm