That was my premise. You did not give me a method of weighing subjective moral judgements against one another, you just introduced a new layer of subjectivity. You are left with the exact same problem, as I already explained to you. You haven't responded at all.

"Results determine morals" is meaningless if the results are also subjective. I could decide any results I want are ideal, and justify actions that both you and I would agree are immoral based on those results.. According to your logic this makes my(obviously immoral) actions in pursuit of that result in fact moral. This is as wrongheaded as you could possibly get.

Your second paragraph may be true for some people, it is not true for me. I do not believe in revelation. I do, however, believe that discoveries into the divine can be achieved through acts of reasoning. In the context we are discussing, this is called philosophy(which includes religion).

Again, your third paragraph is all meaningless without a method for weighing moral judgements(or results) against one another. If my ideal result is to wipe out your race than "what works" is obviously never going to line up with your moral judgements. Your claim is that my actions are moral if they achieve the result I intend--which in this case is the extinction of your race. Painfully illogical.

Then its a skill issue. Using your example of killing people based on skin color is a sign of someone not very evolved. We have thousands of years of genocides to learn from (spoiler alert it doesn't end well). If you don't apply what works method to course correct you can't say that it doesn't work. So don't blame the method without actually using it.

If you observe that killing people based on skin color doesn't work and never has you then have to apply a different approach, and if that approach doesn't pan out then you apply a different one until eventually you start seeing functional results.
That is how you evolve. Thats how nations evolve not just technologically but spiritually. These are measurable results that can be weighed vs the set in concrete moral codes dictated by some deity because he doesn't like a certain shade of skin. We can see the direct evidence of people who use this caveman thinking. They might have better technology today but their thinking is stuck in the bronze age. Instead of bows and arrows they will be using bombs and missiles. Give them nukes they will use nukes and then no one wins.

That is not meaningless that is essential to our survival as a species.

Please, please, stop casting pearls before swine.... This is a failed thread....

Spiritually you say? How interesting you use that term. A term that speaks to the human being body, soul, and spirit. A term seen in early Christian texts. A term that is used in the bible. Something we receive through becoming a new creation in Christ (Holy Spirit).

How very interesting for you to use a biblical term to prove a point. I thought this whole time you've been fully against 100% of the bible.

I like what I'm seeing addone. You are becoming more open to Jesus. Stay the course as this is the best decision you would ever make giving your life to him.

Lol are you even reading what I write?

For the third time "what works" does not mean anything without a method for weighing desired outcomes(and therefore morals) against one another.

I have said this repeatedly. Try hard to read it this time. If your goal is genocide then "what works" is murder. In this scenario and according to your logic, murder is the moral choice.

I read it correctly. If your end goal is genocide then it won't end well for you at least not today. You cannot honestly say it what works because you would be hunted and be put down like a dog yourself.
We have too many examples to draw from in history to see the consequences of such actions. The Austrian painter tried it not long ago, now he is an example of what not to do. If you tried that today you wouldn't get that far. In the end there will be someone hunting your scalp to make sure you and your bloodline dissappears. So unless your end goal is also to self demise then yes you can say your morals are working for you. But thats only in your head because the collective will not put up with your "morals" and you will be forced to correct them or perish. You can think that you are right but still be dysfunctional

So in a way we are forced to change right and wrong thinking into what works and doesn't work thinking because life rewards functional results dysfunctional ones end up in the trash.



It isn't you are just coping.
Spiritual=/=religious

These are entirely different terms and have nothing to do with the other. Spiritual means self experience, growth, maturity and inner introspection. No magic involved
Religious is about replacing outsourcing all your thoughts, experiences and worshipping some magical entity.

If it makes you feel any better I can use a different term like personal growth or understanding instead.

This post was edited by addone on Apr 3 2026 03:21pm

Lol this doesn't change anything, what you're saying is that literally might equals right. If Hitler or anyone else with genocidal aims succeeds then they are moral, again according to your logic. I keep repeating this and you have not found a workaround. Genocides have been "successful"--they have had positive results on the genocidal society and not negative. In those cases do you think their actions were moral? If not, you need a new argument.

According to your argument here abolitionists who failed for thousands of years to end slavery and were crucified or otherwise tortured to death(bad result) were morally in the wrong.

Again, you could not be any more wrongheaded.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Apr 3 2026 03:49pm

You can think ideologicaly to be morally right but functionally be impractical. Just because abolitionists were killed in the past doesn't mean their ideas were wrong. You can say that might is right but that is only temporary. That is an illusion. What is right is a functional result and it will force you to change either countering your might with more might or until you come to your own conclusion and align your actions with what actually works.

If genocides were successful and the end goal then why don't you find out in practice. Because you know all to well they aren't and you would be put down like a dog for attempting one. Like I said previously this different way of thinking doesn't work on baboons it only works for people who are mature enough to step away from bronze age ideas.

Spiritual does not mean that, sorry. Spirit talks about the non-physical, life force or soul of a person, distinct from the body.

It is a biblical term and you are using it.

If you do not believe in the bible stop using biblical terms to enforce your arguments.

I thought you didn't believe in God?

Yes, because we live in a society based on an objective understanding of morality, which prohibits genocide.

What you're advocating is the Roman virtue of expediency, which we overwhelmingly reject now.

Rome had no moral problems with genocide and prospered while committing them. I agree that they were morally wrong, but you are wrong that the reason is tied to results, as the result for them was prosperity and dominance. The reason it was base is because it is base.